Edit - several hugely eloquent simulposts since I started this! Such as:
from Eldalieva:
why did critics, including some very well-known ones like Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin, single out his performances in lesser films and not (for the most part) in the LoTR films? Is it because Elijah's performance was often the sole bright spot in relatively average movies, like North and The Good Son, while his brilliance just blended into the overall excellence of LoTR?
I've been wondering that too. I think your assumption may be right. Or maybe they had started to take Elwood's brilliance for granted by the time he was 20 and a relative adult. Should someone ask Mr Ebert and Ms Maslin that question?

On another tack, I just don't know how I'm going to face having to stay in that boring, ugly, soulless, culture-free city scarcely a stone's throw from that obnoxious, full-of-himself nobody with the big eyes. Ah me, the things we put up with in the course of duty ... :rolleyes:

Ahem. It just so happens that there are TWO film schools in Prague, one of which (Milos Forman's alma mater) teaches most courses in Czech, including Czech language modules :cool: I'm beginning to think this might actually be feasible ... Whether I'd ever get access to Elwood's film set is another matter (do they have any clout with Warner Independent Pictures? Can I convince them my employer insists on empirical research into Elwoodian nanoexpressions or that wotsitmastoid thingy?)

Hope no-one from my employer institution ever reads this :eek:

from erendis
It's no coincidence that the most memorable scenes are also nearly wordless

You are SO right. Beautifully expressed.
Words genuinely are redundant for much of LOTR.

Which reminds me - saw ROTK in French at last! Oddly enough, the dubbed soundtrack is totally different from the subtitles. And Moondancer (?) was right when she said that German lends itself to dubbing better than French - the French version just didn't gell, somehow. Yet different language versions really do give a new perspective - it's almost as if you're watching a different movie. because you notice things you otherwise wouldn't. Very strange.
And BOTH French versions, dubbed and subtitled, completely misunderstood Frodo's "I'm sorry, Uncle, I'm afraid I lost it". Both thought that meant "I fear I may have lost it" and translated it in that way, even though that interpretation makes no sense at all in the context. Forgot to check whether the Dutch subtitles had it right (maybe Moondancer noticed that?). [The subtitles said "Je l'ai perdu, je le crains" and the dubbed version said "J'ai peur de l'avoir égaré", in case anyone's interested :confused:]
And this is a bit abstruse - sorry - but the forms of address in the various versions were fascinating. The German dubbed version had Gollum calling Frodo "Herr" but using the familiar form "du" for "you", Frodo and Sam calling each other "du", but Gandalf calling Faramir "Ihr" (the archaic or literary polite form). The French dubbed version had Frodo calling Sam "tu" but Sam and Gollum calling Frodo "vous" (the polite form, servant to master), while the subtitles used "tu" throughout (I think - I'll check that when the DVD comes out).
I wonder whether either French version was based on the French translation of the book? Did Frodo make that statement in the book, and did the book translator misunderstand it too? Could spend hours in a bookshop researching that (oh, the torture ....:D)

Simulpost from Serena
On another tack, I just don't know how I'm going to face having to stay in that boring, ugly, soulless, culture-free city scarcely a stone's throw from that obnoxious, full-of-himself nobody with the big eyes...
:D ROTFLMAO -- Thanks, I needed that! :D

BTW, having learned some German "at my grandmother's knee" but having forgotten almost all I learned since she died 30 years ago, I found that familiar/formal address discussion interesting. After my mother visited Germany a few years ago, she told me the formal mode of address is used much less than it was in "the old days." If that's true, did they use the more traditional manner in the movie? IMHO, that would fit with the rather "archaic" English used. (My mother would be interested, too ;) .)

And, yes, Frodo does say that line in the book, although the original scene for it has been omitted. It's when the hobbit boys stop to see Bilbo at Rivendell on their way back to the Shire. (Don't have the book handy, but I think the name of the chapter is "Many Partings.") Bilbo's a bit more in touch with reality :rolleyes: in the book. Immediately after Frodo says that line, Bilbo says, "Of course, how silly of me. That's what the whole thing was about. But so many things have gotten mixed in with it..." :) [or words to that effect].

---------------

Originally posted by erendis
Whether they intended it that way from the beginning, or whether Kevin Costner just put everyone to sleep as usual...
Elijah does get top billing--above Kevin Costner--for The War. Of course, as so often with Elijah's movie parents ;) , KC is only there for part of the movie, which could affect the billing, too. I'd actually think Lexi Randall would have been more "competition" for the top spot, since she's supposed to be the one telling the story, but maybe she wasn't well enough known.

But in all of this, I am still going to stump for Peter Jackson (and sometimes Fran). Elijah is so clearly a director's actor that I simply can't attribute Frodo to Elijah alone.

(new thesis topic: do you think Elijah is a director's actor because all those male directors acted as substitute father figures when he was growing up? And therefore Elijah --with prompting from Mom-- learned to obey them to the letter, as he would a father? And only now, since he is grown up, is he able to detach himself from the director's vision?)
Hmmm... The substitute father idea is an interesting one... Is Everything Is Illuminated the first time Elijah's been lined up to work with a female director, or am I forgetting someone? [Edit: Answer to my own question: I was looking something else up on IMDb and saw that Mary Agnes Donoghue directed and wrote Paradise. Any others?]

As far as obedience and following instructions, the directors probably filled the relationship most kids would have with their teachers, too. I'd think the on-set tutors would be there and gone so quickly that there wouldn't be that same connection. If he liked a director, I suppose, it would be somewhat the same as a "normal" kid liking his teacher--which usually includes trusting them, listening to them, wanting to please them. Elijah seemed to do that with actors he admired, too, such as when he tried to imitate the way Courtney B. Vance approached his character. If Mom picked the right people for him to work with, this could be an example of "It takes an entire village to raise a child." :) If you think about it, Elijah is now at the age when a lot of young men are just finishing college, so it wouldn't be unusual for him to still be listening to a "professor"/mentor/director that he admired.

So, I've always attributed his being a "director's actor" mostly to his age. IMHO, there's been some evidence that he's starting to fly on his own little by little. In his childhood movies, it was painfully obvious when he had a below-par director, and wonderful when he had a good one. The reason I was at IMDb just now was to check the timeframe on some of his "transition" movies. The War was just before the only gap in his filmography; he didn't have a movie released in 1995. Then in quick succession he made Flipper, The Ice Storm, and Oliver Twist.

John Avnet directed The War and all the kids in that movie acted so well that I think the director must have had a great deal to do with it (he also directed Fried Green Tomatoes).

Flipper was the second--and last--feature film by that director/writer. 'Nuf said? But Elijah got to swim with dolphins :) .

Then, of course, Ang Lee, and we know he and Elijah did a lot of work together figuring out just who Mikey was. Besides making Mikey a great role, that was probably also a great learning experience in how to define characters.

Then Oliver Twist with Tony Bill. Mister Bill had to say that :p "Ooooh, noooo!"] has done a lot of directing, but almost entirely for TV. He seems to have been more successful as a producer. Anyway, the overall acting in that movie doesn't convince me that he's a great director. But it's the earliest of Elijah's movies where, IMVHO, he starts showing a few sparks that seem to go beyond the directing--judging from his acting in most of the movie, along with everyone else's. And I think he's shown that in other movies since, although very "on and off."

Because of everyone's acting in the LotR movies, I have to give credit to PJ. But it does seem as if he knew when to let Elijah use some initiative, creativity, and understanding of the character. My favorite was the, "Frodo's silent. Take it from there," direction :) . Then, of course, telling Elijah he wanted his grief to be "frightening." And one I actually disagree with Elijah on (book-wise): "I think I want it back" (or words to that effect).

----I think I've run out of things to say. Darn. That means I have to start thinking about everything I've been avoiding. :( It's so much easier to just sit here and pound on the keyboard.

----One more thing on the "director's actor" discussion. I remember that in at least one interview, Elijah said there was a turning point of sorts when he was growing out of childhood and decided to "take his acting seriously." I wonder how that fits in with the timing of his movies, and maybe trying to stretch a bit on his own??

Wow, what interesting discussions here!

I have a question for those of you who were on these boards (or the blue ones just like them ;) ) *before* the LoTR movies came out: who did people think were possible actors for Frodo? Given that the official description of the character that PJ&co put out called for an 18-20 year old--leaving Ian Holm out of the picture for Frodo--who did those "kill me now" people think would have made a good Frodo? MaCauley Culkin? Colin Farrell? Josh Hartnett? :eek:

This question occurs to me not only because of this recent conversation, and the wonderful reviews of EW's previous work, but because I recently obtained a copy of the Graham Norton appearance (blesses Blossom! ) so I was able to see the conversation where Graham Norton and Elwood discuss Norton's audition for Sam and Kylie Minogue's audition for Galadriel. :eek: I wonder who else was a serious candidate for Frodo?

I absolutely adored that little piece of theatre (EW on GN). It was incredibly funny. What a sport!

Am currently halfway through Everything is Illuminated and loving it. Elwood and Jason Schwartzman have excellent source material to work from. (Hmmm, wonder if he's read *this* book?)

serena: hope you enjoy Prague! :) Nope nothing there at all... ;)

hobbityme: I am sooo looking forward to The Yank! However, I am going to have to brush up on my soccer knowledge before seeing it!

Just spent Passover with family (part of the time in Santa Monica!) and took much ribbing after the seder while the group told stories of who walked in when the door was opened for Elijah....:rolleyes: Spousal unit and firstborn son were chief among the mockers.

Originally posted by serena
[B] that German lends itself to dubbing better than French - the French version just didn't gell, somehow. Yet different language versions really do give a new perspective - it's almost as if you're watching a different movie. because you notice things you otherwise wouldn't. Very strange.
Strange, isn't it? Dubbing from French to English is not easy!
German, Dutch and English originate from the same language, so it's much easier to do.

Forgot to check whether the Dutch subtitles had it right (maybe Moondancer noticed that?). [The subtitles said "Je l'ai perdu, je le crains" and the dubbed version said "J'ai peur de l'avoir égaré", in case anyone's interested :confused:]
I'm not exactly sure about it but I think they got it right in Dutch.
The translation of the books in Dutch is rather good. They've changed the names (like they do with Harry Potter) a bit.
A lot of book translations into Dutch are done by Dutch people (meaning, coming from Holland, not Flanders). There's a difference in Dutch spoken in Flanders and in Holland. For me, a Fleming, it's irritating to have to read a book with all these words you don't use. I've even writtten letters to the Dutch translators to ask them to stop using those typical words they use in Holland and to start using words we both use in Belgium and Holland because - for the Flemish reader - it breaks the flow of the book.
So, I tend to read a lot of books in the original language.
To get back to your question, serena. Each time I saw ROTK, I was too busy watching Ian Holm and Elijah Wood and I didn't bother reading the subtitles. I listened to the English version of it. When I get the DVD, I'll see how the translation is done.

And this is a bit abstruse - sorry - but the forms of address in the various versions were fascinating. The German dubbed version had Gollum calling Frodo "Herr" but using the familiar form "du" for "you", Frodo and Sam calling each other "du", but Gandalf calling Faramir "Ihr" (the archaic or literary polite form). The French dubbed version had Frodo calling Sam "tu" but Sam and Gollum calling Frodo "vous" (the polite form, servant to master), while the subtitles used "tu" throughout (I think - I'll check that when the DVD comes out).
I wonder whether either French version was based on the French translation of the book?
In German and French, the distinction between "du" & "Sie" and "tu" & "vous" is much more clear than in Dutch.
Again, we're depending on translations from Holland.
In Flanders, we tend to use the polite form more often than they do in Holland. "tu" and "du" in Dutch is "je" (or "jij") - (to add to the confusion: "ge" (or "gij") in Flemish). The polite form is "u".
In Flanders, we tend to use "u" a lot more often, even towards friends. The Dutch switch to "je" much sooner.
So, because Flemings mix up the formal and the regular version of the word "you"...I probably didn't notice it. I'll make a note of watching out for it on the DVD.

Wonderful posts everyone.

Serena - you have my sympathy, having to go through such an ordeal with the Hostess!

OBNOXIOUS - ELIJAH? BRAGGING ABOUT THE OSCARS - ELIJAH?

This is the young man of whom Liv Tyler said, (which I happened to catch on Conan, only a few weeks ago) when Conan asked her how the cast felt during the Oscar ceremony, when ROTK was notching up the awards: 'I turned to look at Elijah, and he looked at me and said, 'I feel so guilty!'

This is the young man who, on Jay Leno's show, (also only a few weeks ago) reacted to a fellow guests's reluctance to turn her back on Elijah by saying, 'It's YOUR time.'

On every chat show I've ever seen Elijah appear on, he's always come across as very natural, affable, intelligent, modest - and of course, he could charm the birds out of the trees! I've noticed how he adapts to the kind of show he's on - if it's serious, he's very articulate and thoughtful when answering questions; if it's a fun thing, his sense of humour shines through and he happily joins in the madness - as with Graham Norton. Perhaps your Hostess isn't a very good judge of character, because she's sure got Elijah totally wrong! Poor thing.

Originally quoted by Tg:
I don't know if the amount of praise for Elijah in The War has anything to do with Stu being one of his most openly emotional characters--incredibly nuanced acting, but not as interiorized as some of his other roles, especially Frodo.
_________________________________________

I watched 'The War' again a few nights ago, and was sort of stopped short during the, 'Your daddy just died,' scene. I remember thinking that this is the most outwardly emotional performance I've ever seen from Elijah. After his initial denial, Stu starts crying and shouting. He's hurting, and he's angry - angry with God for taking his father, and angry with his father for leaving him, and Elijah played it perfectly. It's incredibly moving, yet Elijah never goes over the top. (Frodo's most outwardly emotive moment is probably the 'NOOOOO! at Gandalf's fall, IMO perfectly, heartbreakingly portrayed) Perhaps some anti-Frodo/Elijah LOTR reviewers should watch Elijah's Stu, and then watch Elijah's Frodo. If they still insist, 'Elijah Wood can't act,' then there's not much hope for them is there?

And while they're at it they could take a look at Elijah's Mikey Carver, who is a world apart from the other two, but is the character that prompted Fran Walsh to persuade PJ to take a look at Elijah's audition video for Frodo. (of course you all know this!) These three characters - Stu, Frodo and Mikey - are as different as chalk and cheese. Their body language is different; (and there's Casey Connor too - different again) their accents are different. (Elijah's Frodo English accent is just beautiful) Elijah truly makes each of these characters his own. That's acting.

I've had the opportunity recently to finally see 'Chain Of Fools.'
(:k ainon) Hilarious! Loved Elijah in this - not enough screen time, but he was so funny. Also saw 'Child In The Night' - less said about that, the better!:) Also 'The Witness,' which is very powerful - excellent, though harrowing. Oh, and 'Peter and the Wolf,' with Elijah narrating. Lovely.

peaceweaver (waves across the pond) - I can't imagine ANYONE else playing Frodo - but it would be interesting to know who else was considered. Thinking about it - IIRC - PJ was looking for a young unknown British actor for Frodo, and had seen a couple of hundred hopefuls until a videotape arrived from a certain young American actor - and that was it.

Happy Easter everyone. Don't eat too much chocolate!

Serena - thanks for those wonderful Elijah reviews. Loved them!
:)

Bye.

Originally posted by BLOSSOM
peaceweaver (waves across the pond) - I can't imagine ANYONE else playing Frodo - but it would be interesting to know who else was considered. Thinking about it - IIRC - PJ was looking for a young unknown British actor for Frodo, and had seen a couple of hundred hopefuls until a videotape arrived from a certain young American actor - and that was it.
That's what I remember, too--that two things PJ had decided on for casting Frodo were that he should be British and an unknown; I'm glad that his search for "magic" finally outweighed those two things in his decision :) . If he had cast an unknown, IMHO people would have been curious and worried, but there would have been more of a "wait and see" attitude than attacks. Rather than giving specific names of alternatives, IIRC the question on the boards was more why he hadn't cast an unknown. In fact, some pro-Elijah people would bring up that same question to the nay-sayers--that is, "Well, who would you suggest?" and the reply would be, "He [PJ] could have kept looking. There has to be someone out there."

I was still a bit naive at that time regarding movie-making, but as I remember it, PJ played things pretty close to the vest. I don't remember hearing about people being "in the running" until someone was actually cast. The only two exceptions were the original Aragorn (who, of course, was cast, so that's a bit different), and some talk of Sean Connery as Gandalf. I don't remember if Connery was an actual possibility, or if his name just came up on the message boards. Sean Astin's agent told him at one point that Sam was narrowed down to him and "some really fat English guy," but I don't know that Sean--or even his agent--knew who the guy was, and Sean didn't talk about it until well after primary filming was finished. From the way Sean told the story later, it seemed to be a hint from his agent that he'd better get serious about putting on some weight :p .

For a lot of the roles, it seemed that PJ either purposely looked for unknowns (for the younger folks) or knew who he wanted and his first choice immediately said yes (the more mature actors). For the "in-between" roles--Faramir, Eomer, Eowyn, etc., I don't remember hearing anything until the person was cast. I guess someone who can successfully hide what his balrog looks like from thousands of inquisitive fans right up to the film premiere wouldn't have too much trouble not letting names out of actors he was considering ;) .

-----------

Translation note: One reason the Dutch translation of the book is rather good may be that JRRT was somewhat involved with it ;) . He complained a lot about the original version that was sent to him, but seems to have been happy with the final product.

Originally posted by tgshaw
[B] In fact, some pro-Elijah people would bring up that same question to the nay-sayers--that is, "Well, who would you suggest?" and the reply would be, "He [PJ] could have kept looking."


Except that I don't know that Pete exactly knew what he was looking for either. Just as we've said many times, Frodo is kind of an enigma. He is Tolkien's everyman, but yet, isn't, because of his looks, upbringing, quiet strength, etc. So Pete could have gone in any potential direction and hit upon something in an actor that resonated with the character. However, it was only Elijah that seemed to have all (or many) of those qualities. And how could Pete have resisted those eyes once he saw what they could do, even in a "cheesy hobbit costume"?


The only two exceptions were the original Aragorn (who, of course, was cast, so that's a bit different), and some talk of Sean Connery as Gandalf. I don't remember if Connery was an actual possibility, or if his name just came up on the message boards.

I do think Connery was a contender at one point because I recall reading somewhere that he balked at the long shoot in New Zealand without the promise of a definite pay-off. It was a pretty big gamble all of them took, in retrospect. They could have found themselves tied to an albatross if the first film didn't work and would have probably watched their careers go down the tubes right alongside Mark Ordesky and New Line Cinema.

The other alternative -- that Fellowship WOULD work (which is what happened, of course), was also risky. The actors had to devote another three years of their professional life beyond the principal photography to being a part of the LOTR "machine". That meant all the publicity (which is time-consuming and not exactly lucrative), all the reshoots, not being able to take other long-term commitments, etc. That it paid off so well for all of them and that they're now reaping the benefits is the true storybook ending, as far as I'm concerned.

For the "in-between" roles--Faramir, Eomer, Eowyn, etc., I don't remember hearing anything until the person was cast.

These were actors I was not familiar with -- I had never watched Xena or Hercules, etc. Pete was intent upon using some native New Zealanders in key roles (and an Aussie or two for good measure!) so perhaps their casting was discussed "down under" where they are better known -- dunno.

BTW -- could someone translate "IIRC" for me? thanks!

PJ played things pretty close to the vest
Was there speculation among LOTR book fans?
I did not really follow the debates back than.
The only rumours I heard were about the casting of Frodo (immediate affirmation that it was going to be Elijah Wood) and Gandalf (first Sean Connery, than sir Ian McKellan).

On TORN, there's an interesting debate now about the evolution of the actors in the three movies and which actor's performance got better in the trilogy.
Somebody wrote that (s)he was happy with Elijah's performance in FOTR, a bit disappointed with Frodo in TTT (but that had to do with the way Fran,...wrote it) but (s)he was really blown away with Elijah's performance in ROTK.
(S)he also said that it's not possible to assess Elijah's performance after just one viewing and that's probably why a lot of critics glanced over his acting performance.
You can not NOT notice him in The War. It's that kind of role. But, to get Elijah's Frodo in all its glory...you need several viewings.

A bit off topic:
There's an interview with Viggo Mortensen in one of our magazines. He said that he had to do more PR for Hidalgo than for the entire trilogy and that it's very exhausting work.
Elijah Wood did the bulk of the PR for the trilogy, didn't he?

Also, Viggo said that he feels a bit sorry for Orlando Bloom. After LOTR, he did Pirates of the Carribean. That's two big, commercial successes in a row. That's a big start for a new actor but Viggo said that it's not an ideal start for a beginner in the industry because now, everybody is looking closely...almost waiting for him to make a mistake. It's very risky.
Viggo said that it took him 20 years to get to this kind of fame and he does not regret that. In those 20 years, he had the opportunity to grow as an actor and if he made a mistake, it was no big deal.
He also said that he does not care that no LOTR actor got an Oscar. These days, an Oscar-winning performance has to be a "see me act" performance and that was not what the trilogy was all about.
(I'm only paraphrasing here)
All in all, it's an interesting interview. Hidalgo is getting a lot of publicity over here.


Back on topic:
Some time ago, I was looking for Chain of Fools but I could not find it. I had to search for it on the internet and found one far away in Australia. On monday, I went to see a movie (Runaway Jury) and before the film, I visited the little DVD shop to kill the time and...what did I find there? :rolleyes: Yep, the Chain of Fools DVD!
That must be one of Murphy's laws. Search for it and you only find it on the other side of the world. Once you get it, you find another copy less than 5 minutes away from your own home.


Achila: IIRC = If I Recall Correctly or If I Remember Correctly (at least, I think it is)
Can somebody translate OTOH for me? EDIT: thanks

Simulposted with Moondancer, so I took out my definition of IIRC. OTOH ;) , OTOH is "on the other hand."

Definitely a risk all-round, and most fans following the process were aware of it at the general level. Would New Line go down the drain, especially since their new parent company seemed to be looking for an excuse to shut them down? Would the other two movies get made--even with principal filming fiinished, there were huge expenditures ahead? Even after FotR's opening night, a lot of breath was being held until after its first weekend. The fact that FotR was so successful gave PJ the opportunity to expand what he'd hoped to do on TTT and RotK.

I don't think the fans in general were as cognizant about some of the individual financial risks being taken--Sean Astin's, in particular, with a growing family and a new house to be paid for.

On The Other Hand

Originally posted by Moondancer
On TORN, there's an interesting debate now about the evolution of the actors in the three movies and which actor's performance got better in the trilogy. Somebody wrote that (s)he was happy with Elijah's performance in FOTR, a bit disappointed with Frodo in TTT (but that had to do with the way Fran,...wrote it) but (s)he was really blown away with Elijah's performance in ROTK.


Considering that they were all filmed together and out of order, that IS interesting. So it wasn't that it got better, exactly, but that the writing (and the actors' enthusiasm) was particularly inspired for the ROTK scenes. Elijah even said as much, on one of those little Japanese interviews that floated around the net recently.


Elijah Wood did the bulk of the PR for the trilogy, didn't he?

And for ESOTSM as well, as we've discussed before. As the star of LOTR, I guess it was Elijah's "obligation", as Viggo was obliged to do it for Hidalgo. ESOTSM, of course, was another story. There, it was pretty obvious the producers were looking to get a hit off the 11 Oscars LOTR had just won. And Lij IS very good at doing these shows, as we've pointed out.



Achila: IIRC = If I Recall Correctly (at least, I think it is)
Can somebody translate OTOH for me?

Ah -- thanks much! OTOH = on the other hand


Edited to add this about what tg had said re: financial risk. I don't think even the actors really even understood all the implications of it. Sean had said that he wished he'd given it more thought before their home became a $5000 a month kennel for their Siberian husky!

OTOH got caught by EE while I was editing it in! :D :D I'd forgotten how fast this thread can be at this hour--I'm not at work today :) .

Orlando has Troy coming up, with Brad Pitt. No rest from blockbusters there, I'm afraid.

Elijah certainly did the bulk of the PR in the U.S., and a lot of it around the world. Orlando, Billy and Dom did more in Britain than they did here, and Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee were interviewed there. Sean did some in the U.S., but not a huge amount. After FotR, with the advent of the "Legolass" phenomenon :p , Orlando started doing some interviews for U.S. teen magazines.

PJ was also quite involved in PR for all three movies, although he cut back for TTT so he could focus on completing RotK. But he did quite a few interviews before FotR came out.

Edit (again :p ): For ESOTSM, at least as far as TV interviews, it seemed Elijah took care of the penultimate week, and Jim and Kate took the week actually leading up to the movie. I suppose this had two results--playing off the Oscar wins while they were still fresh in everyone's minds, and giving the "stars" of the movie the final lead-in. I don't recall any of the other supporting actors doing PR.

Originally posted by Achila
Considering that they were all filmed together and out of order, that IS interesting. So it wasn't that it got better, exactly, but that the writing (and the actors' enthusiasm) was particularly inspired for the ROTK scenes. Elijah even said as much, on one of those little Japanese interviews that floated around the net recently.
In that TORN thread, somebody had the same reaction and (s)he said that it's not a question of getting better in ROTK but it's a matter of being able to show more range.
It's interesting to read their reactions because some of them admit that they had doubts when they heard that Elijah Wood was going to be Frodo and they explain what made them change their mind (at what point in the trilogy and what made them alter their opinion).

Me, personally, I was always convinced that he was going to be a good Frodo but when did I know for sure?
When he's reading his book, leaning against the tree. Frodo hears a singing voice and he recognizes the voice. It's Gandalf of course! He leaps up and gives a big, enthousiastic smile. THAT's the point when I knew he was going to be a fantastic Frodo.

OT: Orlando in another blockbuster? I think that there's often jealousy involved when this new kid on the block gets one blockbuster after the other.
I'd be interesting to see what he can do in a smaller movie, an independant movie.

Originally posted by tgshaw
I'm not at work today :)

Neither am I, and I'm enjoying hanging out with you guys!


I don't recall any of the other supporting actors doing PR.

There was a little. Mark Ruffalo did Ellen and I think Kirstin Dunst made a few appearances too. Certainly nothing like Elijah. Interestingly, it seems that they've moved Lij's name up in the publicity -- he's often listed after Jim and Kate now. There's a new ad running in the newspapers that looks like a Photoshopped photo of Jim and Kate, with Kirstin and Elijah behind. So again, the producers are taking advantage (in a good way) of Lij's fanbase (not to mention his good notices for this role). They'd be crazy not to.

Originally posted by Moondancer
In that TORN thread, somebody had the same reaction and (s)he said that it's not a question of getting better in ROTK but it's a matter of being able to show more range.
I definitely agree. In RotK, we finally have the fully-developed characters that have been traveling those "character arcs" for two years. The scenes at the end of RotK that include Ian Holm were some of the first shot, and IMHO Elijah's as good in them as anywhere else. The scene in the cart is beyond perfect. Without knowing the history, I'd have a hard time believing "the guy who plays Frodo" hadn't already filmed everything Frodo goes through and was acting from that experience. Although his very last pick-up ("There's room for a little more") is lovely, I'd never guess it was done years after the GH scenes. The only negative thing about this is that it almost makes it sound as if Elijah didn't learn anything over all that time, but I'm sure he did... didn't he?

When he's reading his book, leaning against the tree. Frodo hears a singing voice and he recognizes the voice. It's Gandalf of course! He leaps up and gives a big, enthousiastic smile. THAT's the point when I knew he was going to be a fantastic Frodo.
It's funny how things can strike people differently :) . Even though I was one of Elijah's "supporters" before FotR came out, that first shot with the big smile really scared me! Too much of a grin, I think--I worried about where all that subtlety had gone! His bits with Sam and Bilbo during the Party got me breathing again, and, "He's gone, hasn't he?" settled most of my fears.

OT: Orlando in another blockbuster? I think that there's often jealousy involved when this new kid on the block gets one blockbuster after the other.
I'd be interesting to see what he can do in a smaller movie, an independant movie. I think The Calcium Kid may give that opportunity; it should be released soon, unless it has been already and I missed it. Before LotR, he was in that movie about Oscar Wilde, but from his position on the cast list, it must have been a pretty small part.

Originally posted by tgshaw
Before LotR, he was in that movie about Oscar Wilde, but from his position on the cast list, it must have been a pretty small part.

Yep -- if you blink, you'll miss him. He plays a "rent boy", and pretty much just has to stand there and look desireable. Those who love Orli would contend that he does this quite naturally :)

OT from a while back: there were rumors that Uma Thurman and husband Ethan Hawke were up for Eowyn and Faramir. I thought that Uma was totally wrong for Eowyn, but I would not have minded a Hawke Faramir. At least they could have used his darker hair. ;) :p There are some that think Darling David was cast simply for his resemblence to Sean Bean, but I believe his acting far outweighed anything from Hawke -- "potent and powerful" says Phillippa. And being voted "Sexiest man in Australia" didn't hurt. :D

Carry on...

Hi, dear ladies!
The discussion is so interesting... Well, as always! :)
As for me I never heared about any other real candidate for Frodo's role in PJ's LOTR movie. And personally I couldn't imagine anyone else. Once I tried to imagine - for curiosity! - but without success. I would like to know who were those hundreds of young unknown Brithish actors whom PJ gave an examination and rejected... Just to understand what Frodo he was looking for. But I think we will never know it. :(

Originally posted by Moondancer
Me, personally, I was always convinced that he was going to be a good Frodo but when did I know for sure?
When he's reading his book, leaning against the tree. Frodo hears a singing voice and he recognizes the voice. It's Gandalf of course! He leaps up and gives a big, enthousiastic smile. THAT's the point when I knew he was going to be a fantastic Frodo.


I was very sceptical about the film, didn't wait anything from it, even didn't try to find any information about filming... Completely unspoiled, I would say! :) So I had no idea who will play Frodo - until the day in late December 2001 when I saw a crebain FOTR video all some Moscow market.

There was a pic on the box - the official FOTR poster. I realised that a young boy at the front - with dark curls in green cloak - should be Frodo... Who else? The face on the pic was unfamiliar for me - I didn't know the actor (later I found out that I saw EW in Forever Young many years ago)...

My first thought was that he's too young and beautiful for Frodo... But than I told myself that Frodo should look quite young and that he WAS beautiful - Sam said it at least twice in the book...

But there were the EYES of the boy, that decided a lot for me and put some optimism in my heart.. You see, I loved Frodo already for almost 20 years (since 1983), but he was almost the only character of LOTR whose face I didn't "see". In my young days I loved to draw and I made a lot of drawings on LOTR. But I never could draw Frodo - I could feel, sense his soul and emotions, but strangely didn't see his features... He was always too inner person for me.

But I always saw - distinctly! - Frodo's eyes, his gaze - intensive, without hope, turned inside himself, full of pain, fear and... firmness and resoluteness at the same time. And the unknown boy at poster had exactly this, Frodo's gaze... At that moment I felt first sign of hope in my heart - and I thought: may be this kid somehow managed to do it right?

That first scene in the forest (that Moondancer mentioned) raised my hopes to the high. When Gandalf and Frodo hug one another... could you believe this - I burst into tears, unexpectedly for myself! There were tears of happiness - I didn't wait anything from this movie, but before my eyes there were real Gangalf and real Frodo... I recognised them! Oh... That was unbelievable feeling.

So in general I accepted EW's Frodo from the beginning... But than there was a question of interpretation. All of you, dear ladies, know that Frodo's character is very complicated, which allows many interpretations. So for some time in the movie I waited (a bit uneasily) if my understanding of Frodo is close to the director's one...

And... What a strange paradox! - I completely accepted EW's Frodo and at the non-canon scene of FOTR which many of spectators used to hate and curse (Oh, yes, I have to agree with tg - " It's funny how things can strike people differently" !)- at Weathertop. When Frodo dropped his sword in blinding terror... and after it found strengths for resistance to WK inside his soul.. I gasped - and understood that this Frodo is MY Frodo! As I already said once, that was exactly what Frodo was about for me for all those 20 years of being LOTR fan... Fragile, weak, frightened, without hope... but sill with courageous, steadfast soul able to overcome weakness, fear and pain, able for resistance and endurance when facing evil.

And since that moment till the end of ROTK I was completely happy about Frodo/Wood. :)

Beautiful posts lately.

And Rikka, your's brought tears to my eyes!

but he was almost the only character of LOTR whose face I didn't "see". In my young days I loved to draw and I made a lot of drawings on LOTR. But I never could draw Frodo - I could feel, sense his soul and emotions, but strangely didn't see his features... He was always too inner person for me. But I always saw - distinctly! - Frodo's eyes, his gaze - intensive, without hope, turned inside himself, full of pain, fear and... firmness and resoluteness at the same time. And the unknown boy at poster had exactly this, Frodo's gaze...

Wow! That's lovely. I always sort of wish I could go back and read the book before I saw the movies. Oh, well.

For me the moment was when Frodo was standing on the banks of the Anduin, cyring. Gandalf's voice over seemed redundant. At that moment I understood all of the loss of home and friends, everything that the Ring was costing Frodo. The pretty young man playing Frodo became Frodo in that moment for me.

---
More thoughts on "Everything is Illuminated:"

It's funny how closely the Johnathan of the book resembles Elijah. He is described by Alex as "severely short." His speach patterns are very similar to Elijah's when he is at ease. At one point Johnathan is sitting in the back of the car "masicating the nails of his fingers" in Alex's in words. He also mentions that Johnathan has no "seam" (part) in his hair. (I wonder if EW will crop his hair close for the role?)

And speaking of Alex, his personality comes through so strongly in the book that he is at least as central to the story as Johnathan. His unique and very funny speach patterns really distinguish him.

One stroung story line in the book could be played as a road movie. The other storyline has a lot of "magic realism" elements.

All in all, I expect this will be one of those "ensemble" roles that Elijah seems to prefer.

---
Alyon is in LA with her daughter working with her agent on more roles. She's got some exciting possibilties coming up. I hope Alyon will share with us all here what they are! ;)

Honey!

What a great discussion!
Rikka, your post moved me deeply. Thank you! :)
My "illuminated" Frodo moment was the sight of his bright looking face full of affection and heedfulness when he listens to his beloved Uncle Bilbo's birthday speech. I was hopelessly lost...

But how about a picture? We need a picture! I found this nice ESOTSM picture and thought I'd post it here since Achila complained about too less clear face sight of Elijah - here you go!

http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/0903/whiteling/sunshine-promo-003.jpg

Spoilery question! Why is the folded and autographed picture of Patrick in a frame? Is it part of the film?


from tgshaw
BTW, having learned some German "at my grandmother's knee" but having forgotten almost all I learned since she died 30 years ago, I found that familiar/formal address discussion interesting. After my mother visited Germany a few years ago, she told me the formal mode of address is used much less than it was in "the old days." If that's true, did they use the more traditional manner in the movie? IMHO, that would fit with the rather "archaic" English used. (My mother would be interested, too.)

Tg, did your grandmother come from Germany?

There are two German LotR translations - the older one from Margaret Carroux dates from the German first edition (1972) and a newer one recently made by Wolfgang Krege. The Carroux translation tried to emulate Tolkien's "archaic" English (I think she made a very good job. Her version has a certain grandeur and yes, it sounds pretty dated to modern ears, but I read LOTR in German and [partly] English and found her syle very "tolkian"), whereas Krege made the attempt to modernise the text extensively and the result seems to be quite disastrous (I know it only in sections). I don't know what he did to the forms of address (it's correct in "ancient" German to combine "Du" and "Herr"), but Krege's Sam calls Frodo "Chef" which is very colloquial and can only be translated as "boss". Thank God they used the more traditional manner in the German dubbing of the movies :eek: :p .
The following examples of Krege's translation may give you an idea -

-you wolly-footed slowcoach (Tolkien)
-du flaumfüßiger Penner (Krege)
-you fluffy-footed dosser (re-translation)

-Saruman has started a firm in Isengard - according to Krege

-Most of them bore the mark DALE on them (Tolkien)
-die meisten mit dem Herkunfsstempel MADE IN THAL (Krege)
-Most of them with the stamp of origin MADE IN THAL (re-translation)

-a visitor on business from Michel Delving in the Westfarthing (T)
-ein Geschäftsmann aus Michelbinge im Westviertel (K)
-a businessman from Michel Delving in the Westfarthing (r-t)


These colourful evidences were taken from this SITE (http://www.tolkienonline.com/thewhitecouncil/messageview.cfm?catid=8&threadid=68826) (Specialists in Linguistics talking about different versions of LotR and the Sil - geeky, geeky :p !)


Serena, thanks a lot for the lovely quotes and please accept my deep sympathy for your acquital in Prague ;) !

It's equally strange how some things strike some of us the same way--that first close-up after we see Frodo reading under the tree is still one of my least-favorite ones for the same reason as tg gave.

I'd seen "The Ice Storm" but I didn't remember who Elijah Wood was when I first heard he'd been cast, so I went and found some pictures of him on an old fan website in which he was extremely young and even looked a bit like Harry Potter (he had glasses on in one shot).:p I didn't know what to make of him in the role of Frodo.

Then I found the picture of him as Frodo, right after the hobbits have all tumbled down the hill in the Shire and he's stood up again, holding the Ring in his palm and staring down at it. (I tried to post or link to this pic earlier today and couldn't make it work--very sorry!:( ). He looked so completely right there that I was simply thrilled.

EDITed to say, And I have been ever since, of course. (D'oh). And if anyone knows the pic I'm talking about and can post or link to it, that would be nice.:D

Originally posted by whiteling
What a great discussion!
Rikka, your post moved me deeply. Thank you! :)
My "illuminated" Frodo moment was the sight of his bright looking face full of affection and heedfulness when he listens to his beloved Uncle Bilbo's birthday speech. I was hopelessly lost...


Gosh -- makes me wish *I* had a moment like this for Frodo. But for me, it was the moment when the theatre went pitch black and Galadriel's voice could be heard speaking Elvish. I started to cry, I was so thrilled. I guess I just never thought that this wonderful world would ever materialize on a movie screen in my lifetime. It took me several viewings of T2T before the Elijah "thing" started happening for me. Up until that point, Frodo was simply a part of that wonderful world, not the focus (it's quite amazing to me that it took that long, considering how beloved a character he was/is to me -- I even have an iguana named Frodo, who is almost 11 years old!).



But how about a picture? We need a picture! I found this nice ESOTSM picture and thought I'd post it here since Achila complained about too less clear face sight of Elijah - here you go!

Thanks much! I've begun to wonder if perhaps that was the intent, that Patrick was sort of a shadowy character...?

Spoilery question! Why is the folded and autographed picture of Patrick in a frame? Is it part of the film?

No -- that was from some magazine, I think, and someone scanned it like that.

whiteling, thanks for the notes on the German translations. Have both of those translations actually been pubished? I may have to stay away from that website until I'm retired :eek: -- sounds too interesting :p ! For Tolkien, since his Middle-earth cultures are built on language, how a character spoke was an integral part of who he or she was, and he took it very seriously. There's one letter he wrote after someone complained that the Rohirrim speak too "archaically," and Tolkien writes out some of Theoden's dialog in more modern English--and says, more or less, that Theoden just wouldn't talk like that, which of course, is true. :) I doubt if he'd be very happy with that modernized German translation.

My grandmother was a second-generation immigrant, and a product of one of the "mixed marriages" in my family ;) . Her father was German and her mother was the one who brought the French Belgian blood into the family. English wasn't spoken in their home, but when my grandmother got old enough to go to school she found out that what she'd been speaking at home, and thought was German, was actually German with a lot of French terms/phrases that her mother had "thrown in." She was always more comfortable speaking German than she was English, although there was certainly nothing wrong with her English.

All of my mother's brothers and sisters spoke German as well as English, and when we "children" were visiting and they started talking about something they didn't think "little ears" should hear, they'd switch into German. It's a great incentive for learning a language to know that you're missing out on the juiciest gossip :p !

----------------

Flourish--is this the pic you're talking about? I have it saved on my hard drive from before the movies, and I don't think it's exactly like the shot that we actually see onscreen. -- I didn't remember that my copy of it was so small, but if it try to make it bigger, it blurs:

http://www.imagemagician.com/images/tgshaw/outtakes/germantoys-frodoxring.jpg

I also have this one:

http://www.imagemagician.com/images/tgshaw/outtakes/newline-frodoxring.jpg


Now, if we're talking before the actual experience of sitting in the theater and seeing FotR onscreen, I have a completely different Frodo epiphany--which I know some of you have already read (possibly more than once :o ). I was already glad that Elijah'd been cast, and had liked some of the stills. But the first time I saw him "in action" was in the first interview that was put up at the official New Line site. Elijah was in costume but not in character. Actually, I saw him that way a couple of times and was somewhat disappointed. Not that I thought he was awful, I was just sort of "underwhelmed." Although I'd seen a number of his movies by this time, I hadn't seen him much as himself--and had never seen him in costume being himself. So I was still totally ignorant of the difference between Elijah Wood in costume and Elijah Wood in character. I mean, I thought that the way he looked and acted during the interview was how he'd look and act as Frodo. (Silly me ;) !)

The next big excitement was the very first online trailer--there were a couple of those before any trailer was shown in a theater. This was the first chance we had to see actual film footage. Not having the world's fastest computer, I wasn't watching the largest download version, so was paying pretty close attention to my computer screen. The first shot of Frodo was from Weathertop--the actual frame from the trailer is below; I've just trimmed off the sides. When that came on my computer sceen, I just stared at it and whispered, "My God! It's him!" I've compared the experience to having a penpal for 30 years and then suddenly having him step off the plane in front of you. There was no Elijah Wood there--beyond any doubt, I was looking straight at Frodo Baggins. A true conversion experience :) .

http://www.imagemagician.com/images/tgshaw/outtakes/preview111.jpg

Originally posted by tgshaw
Have both of those translations actually been pubished?

Yes, tg, both translations have been published. The Krege thing is even basis for a special edition looking like a medieval manuscript - leather cover and illumination inclusive! That edition was published last autumn. I suppose Klett-Cotta, the publishing house, tried to make a book equivalent to PJ's movies - ancient looking but filled with "new" and "improved" up-to-date language :confused: . Nope, Tolkien wouldn't like it, I guess.


She was always more comfortable speaking German than she was English, although there was certainly nothing wrong with her English.

Tg, I quite like your grandmother :) ! Sounds familiar to my ears, somehow...:p


I just stared at it and whispered, "My God! It's him!" I've compared the experience to having a penpal for 30 years and then suddenly having him step off the plane in front of you. There was no Elijah Wood there--beyond any doubt, I was looking straight at Frodo Baggins. A true conversion experience :) .

Beautiful, just beautiful :) .

tg, bless you! :k The first one you posted is the very one I meant. I saw that online somewhere and I was a goner. Thanks for the technological expertise to get it up here.

My "leaping up after reading under a tree" moment isn't my favourite Frodo moment, although I love the moment.. It's not really about that. I don't really have one favourite moment (I have several).

It's maybe odd that I chose such a happy moment as the IT moment, especially when you think of the dark path Frodo has to take.
It was the moment I was sucked into movie!Middle Earth and thought "My God, this is really happening. I'm really going to go on this journey for the next three years".
Before that, I was almost trembling with anticipation (which sounds a bit over the top now). I was so afraid of being disappointed (like it had happened with the film version of "Interview with a Vampire").
But, somehow...my anxiety disappeared when I first looked into Frodo's eyes.
:)


from Rikka
In my young days I loved to draw and I made a lot of drawings on LOTR. But I never could draw Frodo - I could feel, sense his soul and emotions, but strangely didn't see his features... He was always too inner person for me
Yep, the same happened to me, but I tried to picture the LOTR characters in my head (sadly, I can't draw...I'd love to be able to do that).
Gandalf is easy to do and the movie version is almost a perfect match. Sam is also very good.
But I didn't really have specific expectations of what Frodo should look like because I never really had a very clear picture in my head and indeed...maybe he was "too inner person" for me too.
Frodo had to have certain qualities, had to have a strong "presence" and indeed...I could also feel his soul... but I did not know what he should look like until I saw him in the movies and I realised that this would work very well.

Now, I've re-read the books after The Fellowship of the Ring. At first, I saw Elijah's image but after a while ...my book!Frodo returned and the odd thing is, it's still difficult to have a clear mental picture of my book!Frodo. If I could draw, he would be too vague.
Odd...

(((honeyelf))) (((whiteling))) I'm glad if my post make you feel a bit better in some way.:k

Originally posted by Moondancer
Now, I've re-read the books after The Fellowship of the Ring. At first, I saw Elijah's image but after a while ...my book!Frodo returned and the odd thing is, it's still difficult to have a clear mental picture of my book!Frodo
For me this is different. When I re-read the book (already not once since Dec. 2001) the face of Frodo/Wood was constnantly before my eyes, nothing could remove him. And reading Frodo's remarks in the book, I hear now quiet, soft, intelligent voice of EW's Frodo (even if the phrase didn't exist in the movie). I'm afraid that after the movie I'm completely helpless in this point! ;)

In fact the same is with other characters, places, locations... I re-read the book and see faces, lanscapes and buildings from the movie, hear real vioces and sounds... And I don't complain about it. Somehow this makes Middle Earth more real, tangible and historical for me. And I always liked to think about ME and LOTR story like about real history events hidden in the depth of time of our Earth. I admit that the "historical approach" that PJ used making his movie made me happy and extatic.

P.S. About translations.
Alas! - we don't have really adequate translation of LOTR in Russian. Oh, there are a lot of them! I've read myself 5 different variants and there are more.

But in fact only 3 of them are well known and and have respectful reputation. But non of those 3 I could name really good, no one reproduce the whole meaning and poetic beauty of the original text. The best one managed to get some poetry and literature qualities of the English test, but it's too free, inaccurate. Too many inexactitudes in it. The other is more accurate, but too dry in style. The third one is quite accurate - too accurate I would say. This is in fact over-literal rendering. You are able to get exact meaning of the text, but the literature quality is poor. All the poetry is gone...

So I prefer to read LOTR in English. In fact my first reading of LOTR book was in original. In 1983 in the Soviet Union LOTR still wasn't translated in Russian completely - only a brif version of FOTR (with many cuts). I did read this short one in 1982 and fall in love with ME and Frodo, but TTT and ROTK were not published in the SU till 1990. But I was lucky - just a year later my mom's colleague brought LOTR book for me from her buissines trip to the USA - and I read the novel to the end in English.

May be that is because my first impression was made by English text, I have problems with Russian translations. All of them don't content me... May be the difficiulty is in a big difference between Russian and English languages... But in Russia we have an exellent translation of " The Hobbit" (made in 1975). It is really great! So this could be done! But it didn't happen with LOTR yet... :(

By the way, in Russian language the difference between "tu" and "Vous" (if I may use French expression) forms of addressing is very strong. So in all Russian translations of the book Frodo always say "tu" to Sam, but Sam addressing to Frodo uses only a polite form ("Vous").

In the Russian dubbing of movie FOTR there was some strange mix of forms (I don't know why). Mostly Sam said " Vous" and "Mister" to Frodo, but sometimes he said "tu". And that sounded ridiculous.

Well, the Russian dubbing of all 3 movies was pretty bad in fact. Because of it I watched ROTK in theaters only 4 (!!!) times :( :( Original version was in Miscow theaters just for a month. :( Now you can see the movie only in Russian, but I don't want - impossible to listen after the great voice acting of the english-speaking cast.

EDIT:
Happy Birthday to Goldenberry!

Interesting discussion ...

I have to admit that even though my first introduction to LotR was seeing Fellowship on screen (I'd never read the books before), when I do read the books, my images of all the characters, including Frodo is similar to those portrayed in the movie, but definitely not the same.

I'd have to agree that Book Frodo has a sort of inner-quality that makes it hard to picture clearly - I see him as more of an essence than as a flesh and blood person. As much as Elijah is great as Frodo, when I read the book I see somebody somewhat older (though not somebody of fifty) and definitely fatter, but after that it's mostly vague.

I love to read about the various translations. :)

Dutch was the first language outside English you could read LOTR in. It was the very first translation.
The translation is done by Max Schuchart and it still is the only translation of the book. His first translation was published in 1956-1957, based on the first version of Tolkien's work.
Tolkien adapted the books and so, Schuchart had to adapt his translation accordingly.

Schuchart said that Tolkien was very angry about some of the changes in the translation. Max changed some of the names. "The Shire" became "De Gouw", "Sting" became "Prik",
That's because in Dutch, words like Shire or Sting are meaningless.
Schuchart send his translation to Tolkien and he received a series of very angry letters from the professor. He congratulated the Dutch translator for working so fast, but he added that working "fast" is not always the best method. He said that the changing of the names showed that Schuchart hadn't understood his work. Tolkien did not just pick out the names. Every name was carefully chosen so Tolkien was upset to see other names appear in the translation. The professor even talked about a disgrace! Gradually, he gave in and accepted that changes were sometimes necessary. He refused Schuchart's changing of "Hobbits" into "Hobbels" but accepted words like "Prik", "Gouw",...
Because Schuchart's translation was the first, Tolkien paid extra attention to him and Max says that the later translators didn't have as much difficulties (partly because those translations were done after Tolkien's death). After having read a terrible Swedish translation, Tolkien even expressed his appreciation over Schuchart's work.

So, for Dutch there's only one translation and the movie translations are also based on Max Schuchart's work.

all this is a bit off topic, I'm afraid...sorry

Just want to say Happy Birthday, Goldie dear!

:k

Happy Birthday, Goldenberry! :)
Have a lovely day!


Dear friends, I'm going on a fortnight Easter holiday and will miss you. (The good thing is, I visit San Vitale in Ravenna and I'll see the beautiful mosaic of the Redeemer with the stunning resemblance to a certain actor ;) , the one Rikka posted a few pages back.)
Rikka, I hope you don't mind me posting it again as Easter greeting to the Faculty -

http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/0903/whiteling/Ravenna_Saviour_9.jpg

Happy Easter to everyone!

Originally posted by Moondancer
[B]My "leaping up after reading under a tree" moment isn't my favourite Frodo moment,

That's one of my least favorite moments. Maybe it was just the shock of seeing those improbably big and blue eyes for the first time.


It was the moment I was sucked into movie!Middle Earth and thought "My God, this is really happening. I'm really going to go on this journey for the next three years".

Well, I was a bit late, even though I saw FotR in 2001 (that was the day that my RBP neighbor did his little dance - my mind wasn't in Middle Earth that day though I wished I was).

I was suckered - er - sucked in at Weathertop and the Flight to the Ford. Arwen facing the Nazgul at the Ford is one of my least favorite interpretations of a scene from the book, but it was such a hopelessly romantic moment that when I saw it last fall, I was *gone*. The next moment that did it was Aragorn and Arwen on the bridge at Rivendell. The "Knife in the Dark" scene shook me up pretty badly- Frodo's screams are so genuine. I was sucked into the angsty side of the movie at that point. It's easy, watching TV shows and other movies, to be lulled into a sense that injuries don't hurt so badly that people scream - after all, screaming isn't heroic, is it? :rolleyes: But it was so realistic that it was very uncomfortable to watch - and then when Frodo took the ring off, he screamed even louder!


Before that, I was almost trembling with anticipation (which sounds a bit over the top now).


I hadn't read the books for 25 years or so, so I approached it with a refreshing lack of concern.


Yep, the same happened to me, but I tried to picture the LOTR characters in my head (sadly, I can't draw...I'd love to be able to do that).


I think we see it in the drawings in RotK credits, and in the action figures. I think Frodo was the hardest of them all to capture - to paraphrase D. L. Sayers, perhaps only a rapidly-moving picture could capture Elijah Wood. ;)

The best likeness that they did, I think, was the Samwise and Bill the Pony statue. They got Sam absolutely right.

BookFrodo still strikes me as older, chubbier at the beginning, wittier and more clever than MovieFrodo was portrayed, though BookFrodo got completely flummoxed by Merry and Pippen figuring out (with Sam's help) that he was leaving the Shire. That's one of my favorite book moments.

I never really had a very clear picture in my head and indeed...maybe he was "too inner person" for me too.

I think that's true. So much of the book takes place in Frodo's heart and mind. Also, what Gandalf said at Rivendell about the "clear glass filled with light for those who can see", I think, interferes with our getting a clear picture of him. I think it was intentional on Tolkien's part.

~grumpy (got a digital camera today)(maybe I'll have birdie nest pictures this evening!)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY GOLDIE/ENBERRY !!!!

Fascinating posts recently from everyone :)

(((Whiteling))), have a wonderful time in Ravenna! What a perfect place to spend Easter, gazing on that mosaic ….

Talking of the Redeemer, I’ve just been to see “The Passion of the Christ”. (My excuse for bringing up this OT subject? Someone recently gave us a link to Elijah’s (positive) opinion of the film!…) Went with many misgivings, it has to be said (had read many damning reviews and heard several damning opinions – from people who had not seen it!) – but a friend decided Good Friday was the ideal day to see it, so we did. I was relieved that neither of us found it anti-Semitic, that we saw the point of the use of Aramaic and Latin (as an aid to realism), and that both of us saw the point of the extreme violence in it (extreme mainly in the sense that it’s utterly relentless and concentrated on one person). I’m not a Christian, but the film really did bring home to me a bit of the reality of what it might mean to face the ultimate in physical and mental suffering for the sake of spiritual truth. It was very, very moving, well observed and characterised, and very plausible, I thought (whether or not it’s an accurate portrayal of the historical Jesus).
And yes, there were strong similarities of style with ROTK. Not to mention some similarities of subject-matter. Seeing it must have been a strange experience for Elijah, I found myself thinking more than once.

Just thought I’d tell you I finally emailed The Hostess on Wednesday. Thanked her for the evening, chatted a bit and added a brief PS afterthought ;) to the effect that EW is generally known to be one of the nicest and least big-headed people in the business (a huge understatement, but you can’t lay it on too thick ;)), gave a link to Roger Ebert’s 1994 review of “The War”, adding that this was just one of the 20 or so films EW made before LOTR, and said that my friends and I had seen the chat shows concerned and had had the opposite impression to hers … but then everyone’s entitled to their impression ... Happy Easter! :)
(She won’t be fooled for a second into thinking it was a genuine PS, but at least I feel better now :))

(((Achila))), I meant to say way back that I can really sympathise with your story of the singer you loved and other people dissed. Not that (fortunately) that’s usually the case with Elijah, but I have heard lots of criticism of him alone of all the LOTR cast. Maybe we should pity the critics – it’s their loss.

Defining Frodo moments? I can’t of course speak as one who saw their imagined Frodo breathtakingly personified in Frolijah (I can’t think how I’d have survived the experience if I had!), but I can speak as one who was captivated by Frolijah from the moment he raised his head from his book. Even if I didn’t allow myself to realise it until the second viewing. And far from being scared by his grin of recognition, I thought then, and still think, how very courageous Elijah was to imbue that with so much unguarded feeling, so much childish enthusiasm, so much love and admiration. It’s so much easier to act the dignified, ironised, detached “character” characters that make up the bulk of movie personae, or even the histrionic ones, than it is to wear your heart on your sleeve in the way he did. I’ll always cherish that first introduction to Frodo, complete with Howard Shore’s bucolic hobbit theme (the guy is such a genius of a composer … the lighting of the beacons in ROTK never fails to send shivers down my spine!). When I realised the transition from Cate Blanchett’s voiceover to the hobbit theme and the Frodo Intro was not there in the EE DVD, I knew I had to buy the theatre version as well – and that was before I’d known about all the different extras).
Maybe that moment was the main one Mick LaSalle was thinking of when he wrote this – the best and most insightful summary of Elijah’s relationship with Frodo I’ve ever seen:

“Wood is perfect as Frodo, the one being with enough humility not to be seduced by the ring's glamour. The role requires a quality of being as much as acting, and Wood's performance will come as a relief after many nauseating seasons of vile young screen actors embodying vile and narcissistic characters.
It's a beautiful thing -- an unsnotty, available, affectionate and utterly open performance.”

Languages – did Tolkien know Dutch and Swedish, then? I wouldn’t be surprised if he at least understood them.
But Whiteling’s retranslations of Krege had me in stitches. “You fluffy-footed dosser” – (haven’t heard the word “dosser” since I was at college and had a boyfriend who called himself one) - ROFLMAO! And as for Sam calling Frodo “Chef” … :D *Stumbles off, giggling*

Happy Birthday, Goldenberry! Sending you Hobbit Hugs and Lijah Luv!

Interesting, serena, that Lij liked The Passion. For some reason, I didn't think he would. Where was the link to his review? And I'm looking forward to hearing about your hostess' response to your email -- although from the sounds of it, she may not back down from her position one bit, despite what you present to the contrary. Oh well.

I'm reading Everything Is Illuminated -- oh yes, this will be a great part for our lad! Does happy dance!

Edit:I'm not ignoring all the posts since Whiteling's (have a great vacation **sigh** a two-week vacation--wonder what that's like?). But this has been gathering on my computer for so long that all the other posts jumped in-between. I've read them and want to add some thoughts but don't have time right now :( .

-------------------

Have a Great Birthday, Goldie!

The following offering for Goldenberry's birthday, and whatever spring holidays and holy days are being celebrated, isn't remotely as lovely as Whiteling's, but when I ran across it I immediately thought of the Faculty :p (although I think it's supposed to be a lamb rather than a bunny ;) ):

http://www.imagemagician.com/images/tgshaw/off topic/www_pics_am-children3130.jpg
Hey, get me outta this thing! Where's that Die Hard guy when you really need him?

---------------

Interesting discussion on different visions of Frodo. Since Elijah looked so much like my book-Frodo (or vice versa), I didn't have too much problem with the two clashing. I have two non-movie-related pictures of Frodo that that I very much like, and I promised the Harem eons ago I would post them when I learned how to scan--which hasn't happened yet, I'm afraid :o . [Stepping aside for a moment--that way of using "I'm afraid" would be difficult to translate, I'd think.] One picture is a pencil drawing and the other a full-color book jacket. I've saved the pencil drawing for probably about 20 years, because until the movies came on the horizon it was what I considered the best picture of Frodo I'd ever seen. The book jacket isn't quite as close to my personal vision of Frodo, but if I ever wanted a Frodo to swoon over... that would be the one.

The age and build questions popped up after Elijah was cast, of course. I can't remember how many times I or someone else had to go through the explanation of how--even if the book had been followed exactly--Frodo would look like a hobbit on the day he came of age, since he stopped aging physically when he received the Ring. That complaint surprised me more coming from Tolkien readers than did the one about Elijah's build, because you have to read the Prologue to know that Frodo's a Fallohide and so would be slimmer than most hobbits (Merry and Pippin are Fallohide, too, BTW--since they're all cousins, y'know). But the age thing is right in the main text of the story. Even taking the book straight down the line, I have no quibbles with movie-Frodo. I could have slight quibbles about Merry and Pippin if I wanted to, and major quibbles with movie-Sam, but I try to drop them at the border when crossing from bookverse to movieverse. None of them, BTW, have anything to do with Dom, Billy, or Sean's acting--I'm talking strictly about physical appearance.

---------------------

On translations--Rikka, as I recall, during the SU days any copies of LotR available in Russian were unofficial, so people who were printing them often made their own translations. Do I remember that correctly? It certainly must have been a hodge-podge of books, but at least some dedicated Tolkien followers got LotR into the hands of people who wanted to read it. I wonder if there will be an authorized translation anytime soon?

Moondancer, it's interesting to read about the Dutch translation from the "other side"--Tolkien, of course, talks about it in his letters, although the only ones that are published were sent from him to his publisher; I imagine the publisher passed on his suggestions/requests/demands. ;) He was in high curmudgeon mode before he ever saw the Dutch translation, giving his publisher a rundown on how it should be handled and insisting that he be involved in it. -- He was coming off a bad experience with the Swedish translation of The Hobbit, which I don't think he saw until after it was published, and he didn't want the same thing to happen with LotR (Letters 188 and 190 for anyone who wants more).

But when JRRT's in high curmudgeon mode he often engages in some wordplay, which can be fun to read (if you're not the object of the letter :p ). In his explanation of why he didn't want "nomenclature" translated, he points out that even names that sound like they mean something often have lost that meaning over time or don't mean what they sound like they do. As examples, we get, among other things, the French translation of "Flushing" and of Beatrix Potter's "Mrs. Tiggywinkle." :p ['Not that BP did not give translators hell.' --letter 190] He was especially adamant about "hobbit" because the word didn't have any meaning outside his stories, so he saw no need to "translate" it, since it wasn't really "English" to begin with (it probably didn't help that Mr. Schuchart picked the same spelling that the Swedish translation of The Hobbit had used :eek: ).

But Tolkien's problems with the Dutch translation seem to be limited to the nomenclature, in contrast to what he says about the Swedish translation the next year! It's in a letter about that translation (#204) that he says the Swedish translator '...is a conceited person, less competent than charming Max Schuchart, though he thinks much better of himself.' So he ended, at least, with a positive view of Mr. Schuchart, :) who seems to have gotten off lighter than some other translators, even if his impression was that the Professor was quite angry with him. Tolkien was extremely protective of Middle-earth and everything connected to it, for which I'm very grateful, but which he freely admits made it hell for translators who had to work with him. (Remember this is an author who fought for using "nasturian" rather than "nasturtium"--and that didn't even involve a translation!)

Originally posted by serena
Languages – did Tolkien know Dutch and Swedish, then?
I was planning on replying this but I just saw tgshaw's comment and her reference to letter number 204 :) I have found that letter and it he says that he had a good Dutch dictionary (I wonder which one he used) and Tolkien could speak German and that must have been a help.

I haven't been tempted to read LOTR in English because the translation into Dutch is quite brilliant IMO. Max Schuchart is 83 or 84 years old now and still active. He even translated some of the accompanying filmbooks. He wanted to be involved in the movie translations but family problems prevented that but he still had his eye on the project. He was glad to see that the movie translators used his book translation.

I have bought a paperback in English over a year ago and I plan on reading that the next time I re-read the LOTR.

In the interview, they asked Schuchart whether Tolkien would have liked the film version of his book.
He's not really sure (of course) but Max says that he would have been be a bit afraid of the professor's reaction. Max himself had the first hand experience of Tolkien being angry over some changes so Max wonders how he would have reacted towards some of the movie changes.
Also, Max is curious how he would have reacted when he saw the special effects because that involves the use of technology and he hated that. But Max concludes that he probably wouldn't have mind it as long as the moviemaker does not explain in detail how everything is done. The movie magic must not be broken.
Max himself likes the movies. He has minor problems. He has pictured the hobbits differently. Bilbo for example looks too much like a gentleman and not gruffy enough. But, all in all, he's glad with the movies and he thinks that Peter Jackson showed a lot of respect for Tolkien's masterpiece.

I'm also reading Everything Is Illuminated at the moment (in English). I really need to focus on it because the author uses a lot of language tricks and games (Alex's language for example) so I have to concentrate but Jonathan is a brilliant role for Elijah!

Thank you for all the birthday wishes, dear Faculty members!

tgshaw, I am ROTFL at your birthday bunny picture!:D

As of today I am now the same age as Frodo when he set out to destroy the Ring.:eek: I feel more like a hobbit who has just come of age:). One of the joys of the past year has been the wealth of articulate, thoughtful observations posted in this thread by you, my sisters in Frolijah fandom. I seldom have more to contribute than my appreciation, but it is hearfelt.

Long Live the Faculty!

Originally posted by serena
And yes, there were strong similarities of style with ROTK. Not to mention some similarities of subject-matter. Seeing it must have been a strange experience for Elijah, I found myself thinking more than once.
Hadn't really thought about Elijah in connection to that movie, but I can see how he might have appreciated the efforts to make it historically accurate, especially after the LotR experience.

(She won’t be fooled for a second into thinking it was a genuine PS, but at least I feel better now :))
Yeah, I think a PS on an email is a bit of an oxymoron, since you can always go back and insert something above your signature ;) . But I still use it sometimes as a stylistic device just to show that something's not really connected with the rest of the message. Congratulations on finding (IMHO) a courteous yet straightforward way of giving her some badly needed information--whether she accepts it or not. :)

...how very courageous Elijah was to imbue that with so much unguarded feeling, so much childish enthusiasm, so much love and admiration. It’s so much easier to act the dignified, ironised, detached “character” characters that make up the bulk of movie personae, or even the histrionic ones, than it is to wear your heart on your sleeve in the way he did...
When writing about Frodo experiences earlier, I started saying that I thought some of movie-Frodo's more "childish" moments bothered me because Frolijah did look so much like my vision of book-Frodo that I wanted him to act like the older hobbit Frodo was. But I realized that even in the book, Frodo is that young at the time of the Party. It's between that and his leaving Bag End that he ages mentally and emotionally (although not physically) 17 years. So I guess he has every right to act any way he wants at the beginning :) . And even if he doesn't get more serious later because he's older, there are certainly enough other things he faces to give him that "gravitas". (But I'll agree with zkg about book-Frodo being wittier and more clever--clever even in some serious matters, such as his conversations with Faramir.)

When I realised the transition from Cate Blanchett’s voiceover to the hobbit theme and the Frodo Intro was not there in the EE DVD, I knew I had to buy the theatre version as well – and that was before I’d known about all the different extras).
Yes, I much prefer the theatrical version's beginning, as well as a couple of other parts of it. In fact, the wonders of DVDs have let me concoct my own "cut" of the movie--when to switch disks between scenes so I get my favorite versions of things :) . With TTT, OTOH, I think I pretty much prefer the EE all the way through.

And as for Sam calling Frodo “Chef” … :D *Stumbles off, giggling*
When writing earlier about JRRT's penchant for wordplay, I was thinking how there are some things like that that just can't be perfectly translated. The hobbits using familiar and formal modes of address is one of those, I think. Since the hobbits' speech is more "modern" than most of the other folks' in Middle-earth, they use "you" for everyone--as opposed to some of the more archaic speakers' "thee" and "thou". Tolkien said that one reason the people of Minas Tirith decided Pippin must be a prince is that he spoke to Aragorn using what they considered the "familiar" form of address, and they thought Pippin must be of similar high rank. (That's also a big part of what's behind a couple of statements that the hobbits seem courteous even though their speech is "strange.") In a language where everyone uses both forms of address, it would be awfully hard to show that hobbit quirk in a translation.

Hard to say what Tolkien would have thought of PJ's version, although I'm sure he would have wanted the reason behind each change thoroughly explained. Reading what he says about any kind of adaptation of LotR, my first thought would be that he'd be unhappy with them, but, then he did sell the rights, so was willing to let go of it a bit. And I agree with Moondancer's take on what he'd think of the special effects. In "On Fairy-stories" he says that fantasy simply can't be adapted to a visual medium because you lose, well, the fantasy of it. He was talking mainly of plays. When he wrote that, I'm sure he couldn't even have imagined what would be possible to do in a visual adaptation today. And I think, as Moondancer said, as long as the magic wasn't broken (and the visual effect agreed with what he'd written ;) ) he'd be happily amazed.


-----Regarding my opinion on Frodo's scream at Weathertop. Just replay everything zkg said about it, word for word.

I was not sold on EW's Frodo the instant we saw him, but somewhere during his conversation with Gandalf in the cart. My book Frodo had (and continues to have) brown eyes, and was not so lovely. His was more an inner beauty, "for those who have eyes to see." But if I hadn't bought EW's Frodo before, I still would have been lost when he said, "What must I do." ;)

Happy Birthday, Goldie!

http://www.mealtime.org/images/photos/Pineapple_Pumpkin_Cheesecake.gif

Pineapple pumpkin cheesecake. You gonna buy that a pineapple is a berry? :D I've seen it argued that it's a fused cluster of berries, how about that? :p

You guys are making me want to watch FOTR again. Don't believe I've had a quiet day with that since ROTK came out.

Sheryl

Happy Birthday, Goldenberry!

http://img-nex.theonering.net/images/scrapbook/12498.jpg

Hope it was a wonderful day! :k


Re: these translated LOTR bits --- if there was one good thing (as far as I'm selfishly and shallowly concerned ;) ) about being colonised by the Brits once upon a time, it's that it made English into a persistent second language here and we never have to contend with translated books and dubbed movies. :D :D We do live with lousy subtitles, but that's just to give us something to read and ROTF&L while watching movies and TV. :D


Frodo at Weathertop -- that performance let me know that I would need to hunt down every Elijah Wood movie ever made as soon as I left the cinema of 1st FotR viewing. :)

But the person who really sold me on PJ's vision of Middle Earth: Gandalf. I happened to see the FotR trailer on a very small screen in a bus, and I couldn't believe it ... there was the Gandalf from Lord of the Rings! I would have watched LOTR anyway, but knowing that Gandalf had come to life ensured that I went into my first viewing feeling rather excited about what might unfold. So it was Gandalf who brought me back to Frodo and all the accompanying joys of obsess-err-enjoying LOTR. I kinda think that's quite right the way that worked. ;)

Originally posted by tgshaw
On translations--Rikka, as I recall, during the SU days any copies of LotR available in Russian were unofficial, so people who were printing them often made their own translations. Do I remember that correctly?

Not exactly, tg.
As I remember, Tolkien never was a "prohibited" author in the Soviet Union. His "The Hobbit" was officially translated and published in the SU in 1975. And kids here liked the book! For me, for example, it was one of the favorite books of my childhood. My mom presented "The Hobbit" to me on my 9th birthday. :) The translation was brilliant - till now I remember songs and verses from "The Hobbit" in Russian.

And the first translation & publication of FOTR in the SU (1982) also was quite official, done by one of the regular publishing houses. The book was named "The Ringbearers", or if to translate in English exactly - "The Keepers", because they translate "a ringbearer" as "a keeper of the ring" (this sounds more appropriate in Russian) and a Fellowship also as a Keepers (this I can't explain ;) ) . There were some cuts from the text in that publication, but not because of ideological reasons. At that time in the SU LOTR considered to be a fairy tale for children, and it was published in the publishing house that specialised on books for kids. So the editors (or translators?) cut from FOTR some passages they thought will be too tedious for children (for example all "Concerning hobbits" introduction).

"The Keepers" was published in summer 1982 and had a success, even the number of copies wasn't big. Only after it the ideological roolers of my country somehow understood that LOTR isn't a book for kids. :) Well, Tolkien wasn't prohibited in the US and a second edition of "The Keepers" was made some years later, but the further translation and publishing of the whole novel (TTT and ROTK) was stopped.

Than, as you mentioned correctly, for next 7 or 8 years, only unofficial amateur translations of TTT and ROTK existed - those who couldn't find LOTR in English (or didn't know the language) had to read those copies, made by soviet Tolkien fandom.

First complete official publication of LOTR in Russian was made in the late years the Soviet Union - from 1988 to 1991. Full edition of FOTR made appearance in 1988, TTT - in 1990 and ROTK - in 1991.

Originally posted by tgshaw (But I'll agree with zkg about book-Frodo being wittier and more clever--clever even in some serious matters, such as his conversations with Faramir.)
In this point I wouldn't agree with tg and zkg.
IMO, book/Frodo isn't more clever than movie/Frodo, he's just older and more experienced. Movie/Frodo is not less intelligent, he has very good, quick and sharp wits, he's only very young and knows less about life. From my point of view this is the only difference.

Achila, for some reason I now can't find the link I had a few days ago to a (written) quote from Elijah about "The Passion of the Christ". But what I have found is a video (on a totally different, Dutch site) of part of that brief interview with both Elijah and Dom, who went to see the very first showing of "The Passion" (the enthusiasm of those boys for certain movies is so endearing!). You may have to wait some time for it to load (click on the 56k or ADSL link). Unfortunately it doesn't include Elwood's last statement about "The Passion" being an incredible piece of filmmaking (or something like that) - but it is another excuse to listen to that voice and gaze on that beautiful face :), not to mention see a bit of a trailer:

here (http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id=75051/contentid=457052/sc=95cb17)

As for getting a reply from The Hostess, I somehow don't think I'm going to. Her most likely reaction will be to send me up to others for liking EW whenever the subject of the film comes up in conversation. But secretly she may start to change her mind about him. It was worth the try.

And still on the subject of people's opinions (which never cease to amaze me), I've just had a longish discussion with another friend who is convinced (and says others are too) that Mel Gibson did it for the money, knowing it would be a crowd-puller. From everything I've read about Mel, I think that's likely to be his very last motivation (for a start, he hardly needed the cash, and he largely financed the project with his own movie earnings, apparently). I'm really tempted here to get into a long discussion of the theme of popular misunderstandings - of celebrities of all kinds, including film directors, their subjects (Christ himself, hailed and then pilloried by the masses, springs to mind, as does Frodo of course), and the actors who embody those characters on screen, such as Elijah. Those themes are so closely interwoven, and the parallels between the films and their subjects are so striking, it's quite surreal. Perhaps people spurn certain outstanding personalities because they can't cope with the thought of a mere human being better than they are in some way - i.e holding and being able to act on a greater conviction. Particularly a conviction they themselves can't get their heads round. But this is dangerous ground, so I'll get off it right now!

Thanks for the link, serena! :cool: I really love the fact that Lij (and Dom too) was able to cut through the BS and see The Passion as a piece of filmmaking and judge it on those terms, rather than get embroiled in the controversy. Of course, though, he knows Mel and might not be exactly objective!

I personally think people have a hard time dealing with celebrities who are portrayed as "good". From the experience I relayed earlier about the singer and with Elijah now too, it seems that the general public is less inclined to believe it -- they always seem to be waiting for those "feet of clay" to reveal themselves. And then they can say (with unabashed pleasure), "See, I told you he/she wasn't all that and a bag of chips." Does it make us feel better about ourselves -- that, "hey, you're just as shallow, conceited, human, etc etc (fill in the blank) as I am, man"? There appears to be much more "respect" in our world for those who succumb to temptation (Gollum) than those who resist it (Frodo).

However, Frodo isn't able to resist it forever, and that's where I have a hard time understanding why his case isn't met with more sympathy. People readily embrace Gollum and his fall to the dark side -- they "understand" him -- but they malign Frodo for his moment of weakness. Perhaps it's the fact that we all wish we wouldn't be tempted but know that in the end, we would be. Therefore, ultimately, Frodo is "us".

THAT'S why he's Tolkien's everyman. And that's why the character (and subsequently, unfortunately, the actor portraying him) makes some people very uncomfortable. He's their own failed struggle and unavoidable humanity.

Phew -- heavy philosophy for an early Saturday morning!

If anyone is interested in continuing a more in-depth discussion of The Passion of the Christ, there is already a thread in the Movie Forum for it here (http://www.khazaddum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2608) .

I'm enjoying the discussions about the LotR translations very much. I'm just reading Tom Shippey's "Tolkien, Author of the Century", and Tolkien's absolute devotion to the correct use of language, not just grammatically but historically, is so intense that I can understand how much it must have irked him to have others treat it more casually. Though in reality, much of that was probably due to the fact that there were few people who had his depth of knowledge in the area, so translating his works to his standards would be nearly impossible.

And I have to admit that, the first time I saw FotR, I knew I was in Middle-Earth before I even saw Frodo's face on the screen. That first glimpse of the Shire was so much like the Shire I'd carried around in my head for so many years that I was stunned - I didn't think it was possible to actually bring it to life. For me, reading the book had always been about more than the characters (much as I loved them) - I was in love with all of Middle-Earth, it's textures, it's cultures, it's richness. Seeing the Shire, and beginning to understand that ALL of that was going to be included - that alone was worth the price of admission.

Originally posted by Achila
And that's why the character (and subsequently, unfortunately, the actor portraying him) makes some people very uncomfortable. He's their own failed struggle and unavoidable humanity.

A wonderful thought, (((Achila)))! It sounds so true. I agree. This is the problem. In general people hate to think that they may lose.

Originally posted by Achila
I'm reading Everything Is Illuminated -- oh yes, this will be a great part for our lad! Does happy dance!
I'd like to share everybody's enthusiasm about this future "Everything Is Illuminated" movie. But I'm afraid I will have a lot of problems with it - because of the location of the story. If I understand correctly this is Ukraine? Than... oops.

Please, no offence, I'm sorry to say this, but western people know so few about the real life in the countries of former Soviet Union! It's unbelievable, how few... Western mass media created (and continues to create) a countless number of strange stereotypes, silly myths, fables and prejudices about us and our life...

So when western movie directors make movies about Russians (Ukrainians, Belorussians and so on), very often for us these movies are hysterically funny, because they are oversaturated with odd mistakes and nonsense - look like a parody or caricature, even if they pretend to be serious! And in general they have nothing in common with RL here and with us. So this is almost impossible to take them seriously, alas. :( When I watch such movies I can't stop giggling but than I feel irritation.

I'm afraid and almost sure that this "Everything Is Illuminated" movie will be the same kind of odd fable. Why shouldn't it be? In fact I didn't see different examples - it is true even for the great directors. I really love David Lean, his "Lawrence of Arabia" is among my favs of all time! But his "Doctor Zhivago"... Oh, Lord, no... for Russian eyes this movie is a laugh through tears, so many absurd mistakes and silly details... :eek:

Have you read the book, Rikka?

Serena, thanks for the link. Now, that's a typical accent from Holland. Flemish sounds very different.
They were mispronouncing "Elijah" as usual. You would think that after the massive promotion for the LOTR, they would know how to pronounce it by now.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Moondancer
They were mispronouncing "Elijah" as usual. You would think that after the massive promotion for the LOTR, they would know how to pronounce it by now.:rolleyes:


Of course, you would know better than I, but I wondered if perhaps they're not able to pronounce "j", so it comes out "y"? Germans pronounce "j" as "ch", right?

No, it's not a question of not being able to pronounce the letter "j". It's easy enough, they're just too lazy to learn how Elijah's name should be pronounced.

We pronounce "j" totally differently. You almost don't hear the letter. Germans pronounce the letter "j" exactly like we do.

"th" like you pronounce it in words like North...that's not easy to pronounce for us.
Remember the series North and South (with Patrick Swayze)? It was hilarious to hear what the program announcers would make of the name when they had to do their little presentation before each episode.
A lot of people just said "Nord and Soud". LOL

But the way you guys pronounce "j" is no problem for us.

Ah -- thanks for the pronounciation lesson, Moondancer!

Originally posted by Moondancer
Have you read the book, Rikka?

No, I haven't. It wasn't translated and published here as far as I know...and this is too bothersome and expensive to search where I could purchase it abroad in English.

Well, I say nothing bad about the book, I didn't read it, so I can not judge. And I easily admit that it could be well written and a good story. IMHO, it's easier to be correct and true to reality in writing. My fears are only about the movie - visual arts are more demanding and challenging in this point - they don't forgive mistakes and ignorance of subject they represent. Mr. Lean, by the way, adapted the russian novel, a very good one, classical... but the result was... hmmm...
So even a great director could take a very good and authentic literature text, and to make a fable from it, if he doesn't know the realities of this material.

from Narya:
I'm just reading Tom Shippey's "Tolkien, Author of the Century", and Tolkien's absolute devotion to the correct use of language, not just grammatically but historically, is so intense that I can understand how much it must have irked him to have others treat it more casually.

Ah. Just in case anyone thinks I was being too ludicrously arrogant a while back when I asked to be KD's own Brian Sibley for a week, I was thinking of the book he wrote about the filming of FOTR, not the book about Tolkien! It was just a plea to be allowed behind the scenes! :eek:

from Achila:
Does it make us feel better about ourselves -- that, "hey, you're just as shallow, conceited, human, etc etc (fill in the blank) as I am, man"? There appears to be much more "respect" in our world for those who succumb to temptation (Gollum) than those who resist it (Frodo).

Yes, well said, Achila! But does Frodo's (at least film!Frodo) make people uncomfortable because of his ultimate failure to resist the Ring (our own failed struggle, as you put it so eloquently), or is it more that he's been (seen by some as) such an insufferable goody-goody up to that point that there is pleasure - Schadenfreude - in seeing him getting what's coming to him? Some negative reactions to Elijah's Frodo were there from the start, and I get the feeling they were more to do with the goodness of the character than with his ultimate failure. As you say, there's such a temptation in our society to shoot down anyone who dares to be good - at anything - or, worst of all, dares to swim against the current. Most people just don't dare do that - not for anything. And they secretly resent anyone who does.
(That thought reminds me that Elijah himself is someone who adores going against the grain of society, as I think he put it, and admires others who do. He's a very unusual guy!)

from Achila:
Of course, though, he knows Mel and might not be exactly objective!
Yes, that occurred to me too. Particularly as they made such a strong connection through "Forever Young" and Mel stood up publicly for Elijah in the "Richie Rich" affair. But I don't think - ahem - that I was influenced by that (honest!) when I saw "The Passion". On the contrary - I'd been influenced by several well-written reviews in learned publications that totally slated the movie and MG. But I still approved of it when I saw it. And so did the friend I was with.

Originally posted by serena
[B]But does Frodo's (at least film!Frodo) make people uncomfortable because of his ultimate failure to resist the Ring (our own failed struggle, as you put it so eloquently), or is it more that he's been (seen by some as) such an insufferable goody-goody up to that point that there is pleasure - Schadenfreude - in seeing him getting what's coming to him? Some negative reactions to Elijah's Frodo were there from the start, and I get the feeling they were more to do with the goodness of the character than with his ultimate failure.

Good point, serena. It might well be a combination of both things. And certainly bookFrodo's capitulation to the "dark side" is much more rapid and shocking and you don't see it happening gradually (and frankly, more realistically) as it did for movieFrodo.

Lots of stuff to comment on. You ladies are so active these days that going away for some days leaves a person waaaay behind!


Rikka, I can just imagine that the Hollywood version of Russian stories, or stories taking place in any of the other previous Soviet Republics would be filled with various errors. We don't suffer the same here, as my country's generally too small to figure in current-day foreign movies. But I have seen movie viking portrayals that had me simply rolling on the floor laughing. Also, there was an X-files episode which took place in a fishing community in Northern Norway - it left me with the exact feeling you describe. It was unintentionally but *completely* parodic. Not to mention the poor American actors who tried valiantly to pronounce some Norwegian sentences. Good thing those were subtitled like the rest of the dialogue!

Also, I'm still wondering why John Travolta and Sharon Stone felt they had to make comments and laugh heartily at the fact that there actually are movies made in Norwegian and other "small" languages (Oscars ceremony 2002, when a Norwegian film was nominated for best foreign language movie). Made me wonder whether these Hollywood people actually think small countries are ludicrous for managing to preserve their own language and culture. :(


When did I know that movie!Frodo was the *right* Frodo? By the first time I saw the film, at the point where Frodo gets into Gandalf's cart. Although I've loved Frodo and LotR for many years, I never had a clear mental image of how Frodo *looked*, so I was more than ready to accept PJ's version. I was a little taken aback by that first huge-eyes glimpse of Frodo, and his following a-bit-strange laughter, but by the time Frodo and Gandalf hugged I was pretty much sold. Frolijah's been the perfect Frodo for me, ever since.

I actually think that Frodo has continued to be a very difficult character to "get" visually, for artists as well as for for ordinary readers. I've seen quite a lot of various LoTR illustrations, and by and large the artists portray the elves and men very well, but the hobbits.... nah. The closest an artist came before the movies (just IMO, of course!) was Alan Lee in his "Taming of Smeagol" illustration - the one that was perfectly recreated by PJ in TTT.


I love the geeky translation discussions! I find this totally fascinating, and I'll add another language to the pile of translation information posts if I may: LotR has been translated to Norwegian twice. The older version was the one I read first (after I'd read the English version, that is). I liked that one. It had quite old-fashioned language, as far as I can recall, and I don't think it went for accuracy in translationn of names; - rather for names that evoked the proper sentiments. For instance, Rivendell was "Elverhøy" - a name very reminiscent of tales of fairies and poems from the romanticist literary area. While the current translation has the name as "Kløvendal" ; - literally "Cloven valley" which of course is as close as one could get to Imladris/RivenDell.

The new and current translation is the only one in print by now. Overall I like it, and it makes a huge effort with the translation of names (whether of places and persons), yet Sam's mode of speech is sometimes a little too deliberately rustic to my taste. Also he uses the Norwegian equivalent of the French "Vous" / German "Sie" when addressing Frodo, which by now seems true to Tolkien, but *not* to contemporary Norwegian, as the form has lately largely gone out of spoken use. By now not even the Prime Minister would be addressed that way.

My pet peeve continues to be the translation of the name "Baggins" though. In Norwegian it's "Lommelun", (Lomme=pocket, lun=cozy and warm) and I just can't get used to that. I think it is meant to capture the hobbity intent behind the name rather than being a literal translation (unlike the German, French, Swedish and Danish editions of same) but it doesn't quite work IMO.


Concerning EJW's positive comments on "The Passion", this makes me very sad, just as I was sorry when I learned that he'd been reading "American Psycho" while having his hobbit feet applied during LotR principal shooting. Both these "Works of Art", whatever their purported intent, IMO serve to make their audience more insensitive to sadism, torture and human physical suffering, and to increase audience tolerance levels for such matters, if for no other reason then due to mental defence mechanisms. I don't want anyone, and certainly not EJW, to have any kind of tolerance level for such matters. And yes, all too often in RL when people have been witness to some form of violence (a severe beating, a robbery....) they've been just standing there, staring, and afterwards state that "it was just like in the movies!"; - so I absolutely do think that getting used to seeing such things on film blends into and ups RL tolerance levels, too. That scares me.

Perhaps EJW and other actors and movie industry people have an easier time of it, that they can more clearly single out the components that make up the whole; - that they are able to appreciate the cinematography, the makeup and what not instead of just being overwhelmed by the total impression. However, EJW has had the lead role in the movie trilogy that truly proved that the impact made and the sum total of a film can be far greater and stronger than the sum of its separate parts. He should be very conscious about this, and probably is. So I'm sad that he finds anything positive to say about "The Passion". (A film which I've absolutely no interest in discussing further on a stand-alone basis, btw.)

Originally posted by Maeglian
Rikka, I can just imagine that the Hollywood version of Russian stories (...) would be filled with various errors. But I have seen movie viking portrayals that had me simply rolling on the floor laughing.

(((Maeglian ))), dear, exactly this type of reaction - rolling on the floor in laughter! :) I'm glad that someone other here could understand me!

Originally posted by Maeglian
my country's generally too small to figure in current-day foreign movies. .
Than you, Norwegians, are lucky! :) We, Russians, are the constant and long time victims of Hollywood. More over, in the majority of Hollywood production we are nasty "bad guys" that only adds spice to the whole ridiculous effect. ;)

Originally posted by Maeglian
Made me wonder whether these Hollywood people actually think small countries are ludicrous for managing to preserve their own language and culture. :(
I'm afraid that many of those aggorant Hollywood stars sincerely think so! :o Well, this only shows their own narrow-mindedness and ignorance. I suspect they know nothing about big, multicolored and various world behind the bounds of California. Hmmm.. No sence to take offence on those very rich (in money), but poor poor things. ;)

Originally posted by Maeglian
I was a little taken aback by (...) his following a-bit-strange laughter
You know, Maeg, I always had (and have) problems with EW's laughter, not only in this scene, but everywhere, in fact, in all his movies (even when he was cute little kid) and in RL interviews, too! I just don't like the sound of his laughter - seems too harsh and grate on the ears to me. I can't do anything about it. And I suppose he can't, too - that is simply his own way of laughing (all of us are very individual in the way we laugh, right? ..and can't do it in other way). So I just accepted this as a part of his personality - and his roles. I told myself that after all, it's impossible to like everything in any person. ;) All of us have some shortcomings - we are living beings, not abstract perfections, so let this will be the worst shortcoming of Mr. EJW in my eyes!:D

Originally posted by Maeglian
The closest an artist came before the movies (just IMO, of course!) was Alan Lee in his "Taming of Smeagol" illustration - the one that was perfectly recreated by PJ in TTT.
Right you are! I also liked Frodo only at some pics by Lee, especially at this one... And the other one - The Black Gates. And this pic was also precisely reproducted in the movie! I also love one more pic of Frodo by Lee - "At the Mount Doom" - but it was made after the start of LOTR filming, so Frodo already reminds Frolija very much.

Originally posted by Maeglian
Concerning EJW's positive comments on "The Passion", this makes me very sad (....) Both these "Works of Art", IMO serve to make their audience more insensitive to sadism, torture and human physical suffering, and to increase audience tolerance levels for such matters
I'm afraid, Maeg, that I have to agree with you on this matter. I see it in the same way. :(

from Maeglian:
Concerning EJW's positive comments on "The Passion", this makes me very sad (....) Both these "Works of Art", IMO serve to make their audience more insensitive to sadism, torture and human physical suffering, and to increase audience tolerance levels for such matters

Maeg, I respect that view and know you don't want to discuss this on a stand-alone basis, and neither do I, but I must simply say that "The Passion" had the opposite effect on me to the one you describe above. I was surprised, after all the criticism, to find that it made me (for one) if anything even more sensitive to what such suffering really meant to the victim of it (none of us has or, hopefully, ever will actually experience anything remotely like it), and hence to the enormity of the sacrifice behind it. I don't say that from a religious standpoint, but from a human one. I felt I had to see the film before expressing any views about it. Elijah and Dom may have shared that experience - I don't know.
I can't really comment on "American Psycho", which I haven't seen and don't plan to see, but I suspect that would be a different matter altogether.

:::: peeking in while doing Sunday night chores ::::

Where can I find The Lad's comments on "Passion"?

Re: "Passion" and Violins in the movies (*) --


quote:Originally posted by Maeglian
Concerning EJW's positive comments on "The Passion", this makes me very sad (....) Both these "Works of Art", IMO serve to make their audience more insensitive to sadism, torture and human physical suffering, and to increase audience tolerance levels for such matters

I have to disagree.

DISCLAIMER: Not proselytizing or intending to plug or diss anyone's religion or faith. The issue has been raised; I'm commenting.

I think that violence in movies is simply for entertainment and thrills and often has sexual connotations. It doesn't hurt that Passion has raked in a bundle, but the intent of the movie is not thrills and I think most people realize that. The intent, I believe, is to make the overwhelmingly violent and hideous death that a crucifixion was as real as possible to people, to emphasize the price that Christ paid for humanity's salvation. In the church that I was raised in, a similar thing was done by visting preachers, and certainly didn't desensitize anyone. It sometimes made me want to throw up, but it didn't desensitize me.

I think sometimes that we're lulled by the sterility and beauty of things surrounding religion, with pink-robed statues of blond blue-eyed Christ and golden crosses and crucifixes. The crucifixion was dirty, ugly, violent, and agonizing to experience and to watch, and Ol' Mel was out to show that.

We've spent a lot of time and words and bandwidth discussing Frodo's sacrifice for Middle Earth in awed terms. That's from a work of modern fiction, but we tolerated, without desensitization, the portrayal of an innocent person being dragged down by great evil, and actually giving in to it at the end. We tolerated horrific (if bloodless) battle scenes, and three long movies where the bad guys had absolutely no redeeming qualities whatever, which flies in the face of the concept that enemies are human too. We even tolerated dirty fingernails. ;)

I don't feel desensitized by the violence in LotR. Heck, I bawled for three months and still get weepy if I dwell too much on the Grey Havens. In the same way, I think that Passion will serve the purpose that was intended.

That said, after those childhood experiences, I have no intention of going to see Passion. Also, I read the book and know how it ended.

So, has The Lad been up to anything this weekend or since those pictures that we saw last week? I understand that Sean Astin was within an hour of my very own house and I didn't even know it!!! ::: sniffle :::

Back to the chores.

Edited: commenting on something Serena said...

I suspect that those who *have* experienced horriific events in their lives would have more difficulty watching a graphically violent movie than those who have not, though with the religious connotation, even those in the first group might be able to put it in a context that is tolerable. I don't go to see many movies - they often cause emotional upheaval, often deliberate on the part of the director/producers, and may trigger things that I'd rather not deal with at the moment. Passion is a movie that, I believe, would trigger a whole boatload of stuff for me. I didn't expect LotR to do so, but it did, to the point where ignorance seems blissful.

(Did any of that make *any* sense? :D )


~grumpy
(*) in loving memory of Gilda Radner

hallo girls!!
any new pics of our lad somwere?
i hade problems with my computer now its fixed
i missed you all
its so much to catch up with!!
you all have been busy writing posts
happy birthday to all i have missed!!
i am going to work now but have a good day
and take care!!!!

:k :k :k

Originally posted by Rikka
...The book was named "The Ringbearers", or if to translate in English exactly - "The Keepers", because they translate "a ringbearer" as "a keeper of the ring" (this sounds more appropriate in Russian) and a Fellowship also as a Keepers (this I can't explain ;) ) .
Interesting, because even in English those who have the three elven rings are called "the keepers of the rings." Frodo is probably called the "Ring-bearer" instead because his purpose wasn't to "keep" the Ring--that is, hang onto it and guard it--but to carry (bear) it somewhere.

In this point I wouldn't agree with tg and zkg.
IMO, book/Frodo isn't more clever than movie/Frodo, he's just older and more experienced. Movie/Frodo is not less intelligent, he has very good, quick and sharp wits, he's only very young and knows less about life. From my point of view this is the only difference.
Yes, I wasn't clear enough in what I was saying--sorry :o . I didn't mean to say that movie-Frodo had less ability to be witty and clever, just that, as you say, he's so much younger that he hasn't learned to use his abilities as well as book-Frodo has.

Also, IMHO, the movie takes out a lot of the verbal humor/wit of all of the hobbits, maybe because the writers thought it would be harder to catch on-screen than on the page? And book-Frodo's sense of humor, in particular, is dark and cynical enough that you really need to know the character as a whole more than we get to know movie-Frodo to appreciate where he's coming from (IMHO).

from Maeg
My pet peeve continues to be the translation of the name "Baggins" though. In Norwegian it's "Lommelun", (Lomme=pocket, lun=cozy and warm) and I just can't get used to that. I think it is meant to capture the hobbity intent behind the name rather than being a literal translation (unlike the German, French, Swedish and Danish editions of same) but it doesn't quite work IMO.
I think this is an example of why Tolkien didn't want names translated literally. Even as an English speaker I didn't realize the pun involved in "Bag End" until someone explained it to me a few years ago, because it exists only in British English, not American. Some things just don't translate well. But I'm glad that no one decided British words should be changed in the American editions of The Hobbit/LotR (as was done for Harry Potter--even changing the name of one of the books!). If you changed "Bag End" to "Dead End" (the American equivalent) would the Bagginses become the... :rolleyes: I don't even want to think about it.

from Serena
Ah. Just in case anyone thinks I was being too ludicrously arrogant a while back when I asked to be KD's own Brian Sibley for a week, I was thinking of the book he wrote about the filming of FOTR, not the book about Tolkien! It was just a plea to be allowed behind the scenes!
I didn't have any problem understanding that--I must have missed any reference to Shippey's Author of the Century in your post (but I also didn't notice until now how similar the authors' names are!).


-----------

On hobbit art--I really need to figure out how to scan pictures into the computer :rolleyes: . Out of the well-known Tolkien illustrators I'd agree that Lee's the best at portraying people (Nasmith, for example, does great landscapes but he doesn't do faces very well). But the two pics I mentioned earlier--one from a Mythopoeic Society member who's done illustrations for their journal Mythlore, the other from a book jacket artist whose name I don't know--IMVVHO have captured "my" Frodo better than Lee has. (Maybe next weekend I'll have a chance to try scanning.)

----------

Driving up to my mom's for Easter, I was thinking about the question of what Tolkien would think about the special effects in the movies, and I started thinking about some of the things that didn't use special effects. This is pure conjecture, of course, but PJ was so careful to reproduce most of the sets exactly as Tolkien described them (as opposed to some of the characters and storylines ;) ), that I think Tolkien might have enjoyed seeing them. Some did use special effects, but a lot of them "just" used a lot of care and effort. To see The Hill and Bag End reproduced identically to his own drawing (I recognized it immediately in the first still I saw--no need for a caption!). To see Edoras in front of the mountains PJ searched for in order to make the setting just as the book describes it. To walk through the Rivendell set, or down Bagshot Row. Even, perhaps, seeing Frodo and Sam crawling up the side of a live volcano. I have no doubt that there are a lot of things about the movies JRRT would have been dissatisfied with, but some things about them I think he would have loved, because so much of it was his creation brought into "primary reality."

from tgshaw:
I must have missed any reference to Shippey's Author of the Century in your post

That's because there wasn't one, Tg! Yes, "Tolkien, Author of the Century" is in fact by Tom Shippey. It seems Brian Sibley wrote (inter alia) "The Map of Tolkien's Middle-earth" and a book on CS Lewis (which I seem to remember has been mentioned somewhere in this thread), as well as the FotR behind-the-scenes book. So I still need to apologise for asking to emulate him! ;)

Grumpy, thanks for your comments. There is indeed a huge difference between the gratuitous violence that masquerades as entertainment in some films/TV shows and the brutality in MG's film, which was anything but gratuitous.
The Lad's comments (cut off before the end) are
here (http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id=75051/contentid=457052/sc=95cb17)
Click on 56k or ADSL.
I did read a transcript of this somewhere that I think ended with a positive comment about the film itself. In this soundbite EW is non-committal about the contents (unlike Dom's later remarks).

A comment on an old subject, having nothing to do with any current discussion, but if I don't write it now I'll forget :rolleyes: .

My mom and I watched Gaslight last night, and I had two reflections. The first is how much I've learned since the last time I watched that movie a few years ago, about what to look/listen for in films (found myself noticing little things that had been done to add to the mood, or to draw the viewer's mind back to an earlier scene, etc.). The second is that, while I firmly believe that Gaslight should never be remade*, the Charles Boyer character is an example of the kind of villain we've said Elijah would be good at playing--suave, romantic, cerebral, subtle, calculating, and nasty, nasty, nasty!! Boy, it's easy to hate him by the end of that movie--while never forgetting how d*** sexy he is :p !

Well, a third reflection... As I said to my mom, Ingrid Bergman was another actor who could say so much without uttering a word. And her character at the beginning of the movie calls for some very subtle acting, which I found amazing (noticed that more than I did a few years ago, too :) ). Now, later in the movie she gets to do some serious scenery chewing. Wonder which type of acting won her the Oscar for that role ;) .

------------------

*Just looked it up, and turns out it was a remake of an earlier movie (1940, 1944). I did know it was based on a play, but didn't realize the play was shown on TV twice during the 1950s.

The article that quotes Elijah and Dom about "The Passion" should be here:

http://www.ndtv.com/ent/newstory.asp?section=Movies&Slug=%3CI%3EPassion+of+Christ%3C%2FI%3E+cashes+in&Id=2588

Canna say anythin about the Passion...haven't seen it, won't see it.

But I just finished reading "Everything is Illuminated" and, WOW, did I love it. This is such a funny/moving/puzzling/powerful tale. Even if the movie deal falls apart (she said, remembering "Thumbsucker") I am very glad to have read this book. And here's a little tidbit I just discovered while looking up the entry for Illuminated at the IMDB.

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/tickermaster/listing.cfm?TMID=1228

So I guess it *will* happen! Jumps for joy!



SPOILER for Everything is Illuminated

The main character, which EW is assigned to play, goes off in search of his grandfather, whom he is supposed to resemble. I wonder if this will be a double role? That is, that EW will play both Jonathon and his grandfather at his age? I can only hope....

Re: Everything is Illuminated

"Limited Release" :p Sounds like another trip to the video rental place sometime in 2006. :p

Despite getting great reviews, Eternal Sunshine hasn't come to town. (And I haven't heard any Eternal Sunshine buzz lately, so I assume I'll be renting it once it gets released on video/DVD...) And somehow I can't imagine that Hooligans/The Yank will make it to town here, either.

Well, at least Happy Feet is likely to come to town, and maybe the wee one will be ready to sit through a cute movie by the time it comes out...

Mel

godmorning to you all!!:) :) :)
i just wondering if there is anybody who knows
what mr.beutiful is up to this day,is he still in
London filming or?anyone who has any new pics
from the filming?
i cant find any!!??

Love to you all!!

:k :)

Originally posted by tgshaw
Interesting, because even in English those who have the three elven rings are called "the keepers of the rings." Frodo is probably called the "Ring-bearer" instead because his purpose wasn't to "keep" the Ring--that is, hang onto it and guard it--but to carry (bear) it somewhere.
tw, you see, there some language nuances. If to make an adjective from a Russian verb "to bear"/"to carry" (" nes'ty ") it sounds in the same way as an adjective from the verb "to wear" (" nosyt' "). So in Russian a "Ring-bearer" sounds more like "the one, who wears a ring on his finger", than like the one who carry it somewhere :) Not a correct word for a person whose task is to keep the ring in secret and to carry it to some place, but not to put on his finger for all and his own sake! Because of it Frodo in that Russian translation became a Ring Keeper who carries the One Ring to Mordor... And the Ringwraiths got a name of the Ringbearers-Wraiths. (wraiths who wear rings).

Originally posted by tgshaw

Yes, I wasn't clear enough in what I was saying--sorry :o . I didn't mean to say that movie-Frodo had less ability to be witty and clever, just that, as you say, he's so much younger that he hasn't learned to use his abilities as well as book-Frodo has.
Well, if you meat this, than I can only agree with you.

Maeg says: My pet peeve continues to be the translation of the name "Baggins" though.
I also always had problems with Russian translations of Tolkien's names of places and persons. Personally I prefer the original names. Well, in the best Russian translations of "The Hobbit" the most of the names were not translated - Bilbo was Baggins and Rivendell was Rivendell...

Yeah, I did read Tolkien's instructions for translators where he wanted them to adapt the meaningful names in LOTR to their native languages. May be this works for the languages and cultures that are close to English tradition. But IMHO for Russian this doesn't work properly? because our cultural and language traditions are very different. For example, in all Russian translations of LOTR readers have to deal with Frodo who's family name is one of the synonyms of "a bag" in Russian, but with English ending "ins". This sounds quite strange, artificial and irritating. Also there are a lot ridiculous "miracles" with the translation of Bad-End! This name is simply impossible to translate adequately, so the translators devise a very strange names for Bilbo and Frodo's house in Russian. The simplest one is The Bag-On-The Steep. :)

Rikka, I'm curious: How did "Shelob" translate to Russian?

I think the translator over here made a very good job with that name, she's called "Hutula", where "hu" is fairly close to "she" directly translated, while the total translated name looks very similar to a well-known colloquial exclamation of fearful surprise.

Originally posted by Maeglian
I think the translator over here made a very good job with that name, she's called "Hutula", where "hu" is fairly close to "she" directly translated, while the total translated name looks very similar to a well-known colloquial exclamation of fearful surprise.


How interesting, that it looks like "taran-tula" too. And no doubt, you'd utter that "colloquial exclamation" if Shelob was around!

Did you all have to talk about so many interesting things while I was away? :D How in the world am I to catch up??? I've skimmed through the pages and there are so many beautiful comments.

I was reluctant to check in via the computer at the friend's home we were staying at. She checks her "history" too often!! I would have been busted. Found out good. eek: What do the rest of you do when you are on someone elses computer???


A technical question please. If I want to read a page of this thread way back--you know, like page 99--is there a quick way to get there, or do I just have to keep pushing the back button page by page? I'm on dial-up, so that would take a long time. Am I missing something obvious here???

Originally posted by Alyon
If I want to read a page of this thread way back--you know, like page 99--is there a quick way to get there, or do I just have to keep pushing the back button page by page? I'm on dial-up, so that would take a long time. Am I missing something obvious here???

Go back one page and you should be able to insert the number of the page you want into the address (change it where it says, "page number" :D). The last page doesn't work because the system is keeping track of the new posts for you.

Sheryl

Thank you, Sheryl!!:k :k

EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED SPECULATION...

Originally quoted by peaceweaver:
The main character, which EW is assigned to play, goes off in search of his grandfather, whom he is supposed to resemble. I wonder if this will be a double role? That is, that EW will play both Jonathon and his grandfather at his age? I can only hope....
_________________________________________

I had the same thought myself, peaceweaver, when I read about the subject matter. Elijah playing a double role would be very interesting. Are there flashbacks in the book? I have ordered it from my local bookshop, and am waiting for them to call for me to collect it. After your very positive comments, I'm really looking forward to reading it. Thanks.

I treated myself on Easter Monday and watched the EE of 'Fellowship' again. Bliss. When I first saw the film in the cinema I don't there was a defining moment when Elijah 'became' Frodo in my eyes. His whole performance just had a profound effect on me. His character's journey and development in that film alone was so moving, so beautifully and sincerely portrayed - from a young hobbit with an air of carefree innocence to a soul troubled by burden, responsibility, fear and grief. And then we had Frodo in TTT, and Frodo in ROTK - and in the last he just about broke my heart!

Wood - sorry, I haven't seen anything on Elijah or 'The Yank' since last week either.

The main character, which EW is assigned to play, goes off in search of his grandfather, whom he is supposed to resemble. I wonder if this will be a double role? That is, that EW will play both Jonathon and his grandfather at his age? I can only hope....

Maybe it's because our newspapers can't stop talking about The Passion of the Christ and I see his picture all over the place but when I reached the part in the book, I kept seeing Mel Gibson as Elijah Wood's grandfather. They could easily portray father and son and with a bit of aging for Mel Gibson, they could be grandfather and grandson. I know...it's not going to happen anyway

I'm not yet done reading the book but ...yes, there are flashbacks. The book is set in different time zones.

Rikka, about your fear of how they're going to portray Ukraine.
I understand your fear. It often annoys me how some of my neighboring countries are portrayed by many Hollywood movies or in the popular press (France, Germany,...)
My country is not big enough for clichés: Most people don't even know where Belgium is and when people do talk about us, they often have the wrong information. But I don't really mind.
Belgium has been invaded so many times over the centuries and as a result, my ancestors had to live under so many hostile and cruel goverments that Belgians still don't trust authority much (those that lead you don't have your best interest in mind).
Part of the solution for Belgians is to stop promoting our little country. Tell the world that it's a boring place and maybe they will stop invading it. LOL
I have never been in the US (sadly) but, a lot of Europeans probably have the wrong idea about the USA as well. It's part of human nature to simplify things and think in clichés. But the movie industry is mostly an American affair so in most of the American commercial movies, the clichés are US friendly.
For example: in the book Master and Commander, the enemy were Americans. But, if course, that can't happen in an American movie so they changed it to a French enemy.


About The Yank pictures. I have seen a couple of pictures I haven't seen before from the same photoshoot that gave us bruised!Elijah. It's up on one of the fansites, I think (not sure).
Maybe they have increased their security measures?
So, I haven't seen any new ones...which is a good thing IMO. It can spoil the movie surprise if we see too many Yank pictures in advance.

Edit: I saw a link to some Bacchus pictures I haven't seen before.
Check out "Artist Brunch". That's one piece of art I wouldn't mind owning (I'd love to see a bigger picture to see how accurate it is)
Bacchus 2004 (http://www.randonstudios.com/mp_client/pictures.asp?eventid=88&eventgroup=yes)

Originally posted by Maeglian
Rikka, I'm curious: How did "Shelob" translate to Russian?

I am afraid to disappoint you, Maeg, ;) but in all Russian translations of LOTR that I know, they didn't translate "Shelob"... May be because a combination of sounds in "Shelob" sounds unpleasantly enough for russian ear to be a proper name for a nasty monster! :)

The only difference is in a pronunciation. In the DVD documentaries PJ and the others pronounce her name as "she-lob" where the first vowel (e) sounds like in a word "she" (i:) I know that's the same form as for "she-elf" - Shelob is "she-spider" in old English or something like that). But we here used to pronounce this "e" in her name as "a:" - same sound as in "many".

Morning, all,

"The Yank", now has its own Yahoo group, which I have subscribed to -- for research purposes, you know! Today, there was a post that there were new photos in The Sun of the filming. Not sure if the link would be OK here, so I haven't posted it, but this set of snaps is very disturbing. One shows Lij with blood dripping from his mouth, and the other is of him against a wall, being roughed up by a couple of toughs -- and they've shoved a credit card in his mouth. OK -- the black eye and the smoking pics had a certain sexy quality. However, these are so graphic as to be in another realm entirely.

I abhor violence and especially against those I love. I know this is "make believe", but I'm starting to think the choice of this film was not one of Elwood's better moves.

So, I've PM'd our mods to see if the link is appropriate and will post when I get the go ahead. If it isn't, I'll PM it to anyone who asks for it. Remember -- these are very graphic. I'm advising caution.

:( Found it, Achila.
Looks terrible, doesn't it?
Like you, I know it's "make believe" but my heart still skipped a beat just seeing the blood on his face.
But, it's not unexpected, really. As I said before, hooliganism in its extremes is ugly, violent and very dangerous. It would be silly to make a movie of the dark side of hooliganism and not show the ugly side of it.
But, as far as I can see it, the scriptwriter really understands the problem of hooliganism very well and at this point we don't really know what the aim of the movie is and what sort of role Elijah is playing exactly in this movie. So, IMVHO, I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet (but, that's just my opinion)

I hate violence for the sake of violence.
However, in movies, I don't mind violence if it's aimed at pointing at a problem in society or if the purpose is holding up a mirror at society.
If the movie makers are intelligent and show a bit of taste...I don't mind.

Welcome back, Alyon! :)

Originally posted by Moondancer
For example: in the book Master and Commander, the enemy were Americans. But, if course, that can't happen in an American movie so they changed it to a French enemy.


Well, technically speaking the French were the enemy through most of the books in the Master and Commander series. ;) Besides, I could see how difficult it'd be for a movie to explain how the Americans and the British got on the warring path -- I'm reading the books and I don't get it either (what else is new, eh :p ) but I do get that the Americans were kind of the underdogs. Which wouldn't quite work for the movie either ... so ... :p :D

Btw, Maeg, Norwegians did feature as scientists in 'The Thing'. Granted they raised some alien dead out of the ice, and said alien proceeded to eliminate everyone in the movie, but at least the Norwegians were scientists. Asians and Muslims ... now there's yet another round of unrepentant stereotyping for ya. For starters, it'd be nice for someone in Hollywood to figure out once and for all that Chow Yuen Fatt, one of the greatest Asian actors of all time, is worth more than being the 2000th monosyllabilic kungfu master. :rolleyes:

And uh ... to paddle desperately back on topic ... :o wasn't Elijah down visiting in Mexico while Billy Boyd was filming M&C?

Am very curious about the pictures being discussed. Maybe I could give it a peek. Please PM me, Achila? :)

Thanks for checking first, Achila - you're correct that the site can't be linked to here.

I didn't think the pictures were very graphic at all, and I expect to see much worse in the movie when it does come out. As Moondancer said, given the subject matter, it's certainly not unexpected.

I don't have any problem with Elijah taking roles that fall outside my comfort zone (though I don't think this one will, for me.) He is, after all, a professional actor, and we know that he wants to expand his range - to take on roles that he hasn't done before - and I would expect him to want to move completely away from teen-type movies to finish establishing himself as an adult actor. From a professional standpoint, I think it's a good career move for him to not play any one 'type', so that his range and versatility are evident.

I know this means I'm not going to love every movie he's in, but that's OK. I'm interested in seeing him grow and develop as an actor, and I'm not so much concerned that he make the kind of movies that I like, as that he just keep making movies for a really long time. Because I'm going to love some of them. :)

please achila

pm me the link!!




:) ;)

i just cureas of what he is up to now days
not to cureas that i want to see the hole filming(:D :D )
just a little:D

about the violens,the holigans is violent its okej for me i think
to see elijah with blood as long as i know its on the movies.
but im sure when i see it i probeble will react strongli about it!!
:( :(

I agree with Narya--the latest pics from Hooligans/The Yank didn't shock me. Maybe I am so used to violence on-screen that this seemed relatively tame. The thing I absolutely cannot abide is cruelty, to humans or animals. However, anyone who gets involved in soccer/football hooliganism has to know that this sort of violence goes with the territory.

On another topic, the ever-favorite "why didn't _______ movie get a theatrical release?" I have become more aware recently of just how many films with big stars do go straight to video. Last Saturday, looking through the new releases at Blockbuster, I saw a considerable number of movies starring well-known actors that I am positive never saw a day of wide release in the theaters. A week or so ago there was an article (somewhere, don't ask me where!) about John Malkovich's disappointment that a film he did and loved is going direct to DVD. I suppose I am bracing myself for more of the same for Elwood, while hoping for the best.

I must say this pictures did not chock me atall
i expected worse.

i do hope elijah will hit the big screen in a very big roll
soon and dont direct to dvd or video he so deserves the very best!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

i have some great pics on mr.beutiful i hope i manage to put them here!!!

nope sorry how do i put pics in here?i have them saved on my computer in a speciell mapp but i cant put them in here??
:( :( :( :(

Originally posted by ainon
Besides, I could see how difficult it'd be for a movie to explain how the Americans and the British got on the warring path -- I'm reading the books and I don't get it either (what else is new, eh :p ) but I do get that the Americans were kind of the underdogs. Which wouldn't quite work for the movie either ... so ... :p :D
[Off-topic] War of 1812. I'm not sure what it was about, really, and from a European perspective it would have been a minor conflict between a Great Power and a former colony while everyone else was dealing with the Napoleanic Wars. But from an American perspective (or at least the perspective of any American who paid any attention in grade school history at all), it wouldn't have been hard to explain. The American national anthem has its origins in that war. [/off-topic]

And I'm glad Elijah is taking roles that are markedly different from stuff he's done before, even if that means the movies will be disturbing. (I haven't seen the pictures, so I don't know what my reaction would be.) The best way for him to have a long, productive acting career is to take very diverse roles -- especially now, when he's just past a huge role that could easily typecast him (as a short martyr-type with prosthetic feet). And more than anything, I don't want Elijah to be typecast or to have a too-short career. He's too talented for that.

Wish he'd be in something that would get wide release, though. I guess small, artsy movies are a good move to get the people who don't see acting in a blockbuster with special effects to appreciate Elijah's acting, but they're frustrating for me.

Mel

I guess I'll join the chorus of persons very interested in getting a PM with That Link! :) (In instances like this, we really should have some kind of Faculty mass mailing system!)


Rikka, thank you for the Shelob comment. Once I've started on the translation of Shelob, I'm wondering about her German name too ("Kankra"). It sounds very intimidating and hard and uhm, - cancerous (?), but I'm not sure what it really alludes too. Whiteling, could I possibly ask you for comments on that? :)


(((ainon))) :k Oh, well do I know it. Us inconspicuous and thoroughly Americanized people up here in Scandinavia have nothing to complain about when it comes to stereotyping in foreign movies, compared to how Asians and muslims and Russians are many times presented. I guess I went a little overboard in my commiseration. (Hmmm, .....except maybe blonde Swedish sinful bimbo bombshells have something legitimate to complain about! :D ).

I should just add that in looking at those pics again, it is not the actual blood etc. that makes them disturbing but the expression in Elijah's eyes and on his face. He is such a convincing actor that what I'm seeing and reacting to is the pain and fear he's seemingly experiencing -- darn him!

I totally agree that he does need to take diverse roles that portray him in an adult light, but I just hope that critics and audience members alike (and who could forget that many are not as enlightened as we are) will accept him in these roles. I already saw a movie stock projection for The Yank (yes, you can buy stock in movies -- that was a new one on me) and the price per share was lowered for it because it was believed the public would not accept Frodo Baggins as a hooligan. The fact that this is being said in advance does not bode well, and makes the job of selling this film (i.e., getting a distributor) that much harder, despite the presence of a big name star.

Sadly, everything in our world is commerce -- can it be bought and sold? Even if Elijah is brilliant (and let's get real -- we know he will be), not much will happen if the film goes the way of Chain of Fools. But should this stop Elijah from taking the roles that interest him? Of course not. It's just pretty sad, is all.

just hope his not QUITE ACTING
if his movies keep on comming on video
instad of the cinemas!!
But i realy dont think so but i mean it must
feel in his heart!!!:( :( :( :( :(


the golden gandalf is up on TORN!!!
Elijah walked away with three statues!!Y IIPPII!!!!!

Originally posted by Achila
The fact that this is being said in advance does not bode well, and makes the job of selling this film (i.e., getting a distributor) that much harder, despite the presence of a big name star.

I avoided all the pre-LotR publicity, but I know that there were others who watched it from the beginning (TGShaw, this is your cue!!!) and witnessed the whole "Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins???? Kill me now!!!!" worry that flew around before the first movie was released. And since that movie went on to huge acclaim and made the big bucks, I just don't worry that much about this kind of pre-publicity.

I never really followed movies and movie news very closely before LotR, but I've learned a lot in the last three years. The movie business is far more complicated than big names / big movies / small names / small movies. Lots of heavily promoted movies, which have big Oscar talk before their release, end up doing poorly because they just aren't very good, or don't live up to their hype. (Cold Mountain comes to mind.) Lots of small movies, with or without big stars, are capable of capturing the attention of the movie industry and the public, if they are good enough / interesting enough / get people talking.

After the first weekend, the longer term box office does depend on whether the movie is one the actual public feels like seeing. So I take all pre-release publicity with a grain of salt with all movies - and during filming and pre-production, I take all publicity with a giant bag of salt. There are just so many variables, many yet to be determined, that IMO it's far too early to worry about anything for Elijah and The Yank.

And I have to second Goldenberry's comment about movies going straight to video. I was in the video store last week, and saw at least three 'new releases' with 'big names' in them that had gone straight to video. This isn't that unusual. Several years ago I worked for a capital investment firm, and we had a couple of small film firms that we had investments in. For the smaller companies, the economics of their film-making is not based on wide-release at all, especially not in the US. The majority of their long-term income is based on projections for sales to Satellite or Cable TV, international sales (theatre and DVD, but primarily DVD), and DVD sales in the US. Theatrical release sales, if they figure in at all, are often heavily discounted because they are so uncertain. Theatrical release agreements are sometimes the LAST agreement to be signed.

A bigger part of the movie industry than any of us realize is actually not done primarily to feed the big theatres, but to feed the secondary market, which needs more movies than could ever been shown in the theatres, and this produces significant revenues. Cate Blanchett was in a terrific little film called "The Gift" that, as far as I know, never made it into the theatres in wide release, at the same time that she was filming some of her more prominent roles. Meryl Streep et. al. did that little film called 'The Hours' that got a fair bit of acclaim but fairly limited release - in fact, I don't remember the last time Meryl Streep was in a 'big' movie, but she is not seen as less of an actor because of it.

Which is my long-winded way of saying that, just because Elijah isn't doing the whole 'one major movie release a year' thing, I don't worry that this is a bad thing for his carreer. For someone his age, he is working very steadily, on a variety of movies, with a variety of directors (some of them 'big name'). IMO, this is better for him than holding out for the rare 'big movie' role, because that kind of career choice can lead to oblivion in the industry really quickly. Personally, I think he's doing well for himself right now, and I'm content to sit back and watch the results - even if it means getting VCD's from other countries to watch the ones that we don't get to see here! :)

Hi Faculty - bought Ultimate DVD mag today which contains lots of info about the ROTK ex dvd.

SPOILERS











The projected running time will be about 4hrs 15mins meaning almost a full hour of additional scenes. Key among them are the following sequences:
~ An atmospheric scene where Frodo & Sam reach the crossroads between Osgiliath and Minas Morgul and see an immense statue of an ancient Gondorian king 'whose head is gone and in its place was set in mockery a round rough-hewn stone, rudely painted by savage hands in the likeness of a grinning face'. Frodo then sees the stone head of the king lying by the side of the road,, which now has a small garland of white star-like flowers growing across its brow and exclaims, "Look Sam! The King has got a crown again!" Conceptual artist Alan Lee notes "Its a scene from the book that we all wanted to capture, as it's a powerful symbol of hope".
~ More scenes will be added to Frodo's and Sam's journey through the wastelands of Mordor. While still disguised as Orcs, they are forced to join a column of Orc soldiers, as a tyrannical Orc overseer cracks his whips to keep the slovenly Orc soldiers in line. Later, Frodo and Sam face growing despair over succeeding in their task, until Sam gains newly renewed hope after looking up through the dark clouds and sees a white star twinkling in the sky. "That's a beautiful moment from the book" notes screenwriter Philippa Boyens. "It resonates so much with the presence of people like Galadriel and Gandalf. We actually shot that moment, not once, but twice. Something important happens inside of Sam at that moment."

Re the Mouth of Sauron scene: "... Sauron's emissary reveals Frodo's mithril vest in triumph, falsely stating that Frodo is dead and his quest has failed. This gives a completely different meaning to Aragorn's line 'For Frodo', before leading his troops into battle, since it would now seem to be a completely futile and suicidal effort."

There were more scenes discussed but these were the important ones. Oh, and remember that pic of Sauron impaled on the spike?
Apparently it's in.


This all sounds very promising, but I'm still hoping for more Cirith Ungol:)
















END OF SPOILERS

Edit: Shireling :k ! Great news!! Thanks for those spoilers. I'm so, so happy to hear about all of them, but particularly the first one you mentioned (said it that way so I wouldn't have to post spoiler warnings ;) ).

----------------------

Elijah has said that he wants to do small movies, so I'm glad he's getting to do that. He was enough of a presence at the Indie awards recently that he got a couple of pics and a quote (about his beat-up boots :p ) in Style magazine's feature on the event, so I do think his heart is there. And the kinds of movies he's interested in doing simply don't seem to be the wide-release type. I'd hate to see him do movies he wasn't excited about, just to get some "big movies."

Sin City is probably the next chance for a wide release, expecially with Robert Rodriguez directing, but it's true we don't know how much screen time Elijah will have with several storylines being woven together. But it's actually kind of amazing that that's the only movie he's signed up for (that we know about, at least) where he's not the lead. (Of course, if we don't mind really small roles, there's a good chance we'll get to see him get squished in King Kong, which will almost certainly be a blockbuster :p .)

I'm not at all surprised that The Yank/Hooligans has graphic violence--I'd be surprised if it didn't! As Moondancer said, I hope that with the scriptwriter having the view he does of hooliganism, the movie won't be violence for the sake of violence. I've always assumed that Elijah would eventually make at least one movie so violent that I wouldn't want to see it, but I don't know that this one will go that far.

As far as the "stock" of The Yank going down because of Elijah being cast, some people still haven't figured this out, have they? Of course the movie will have an audience! Some of the industry folks will just be surprised to find the theaters filled with middle-aged women instead of young male soccer fans ;) ;) .

Shireling, I read your spoilers and nearly did my Gollum-with-Ring-at-CoD impression! Those 4 scenes are ones I've been hoping, hoping would be there!

*
*
*
Spoilers RotK EE
*
*
The forced orc-march had been confirmed previously, and the scene with the statue of the king was a reasonably fair bet too, I think - because I would expect the title or the film to be shown during that scene, or just as Sam and Frodo are leaving the statue. Perfect symbolism, that. :)

But the star! That's beautiful! :) That has to be that snippet of them resting at night in Mordor, Frodo resting his head on Sam's shoulder; I would think.

And the angst or the Mouth of Sauron scene! Oooh!

Now the only F&S thing I miss is Sam thowing away his pots and pans. I do hope they've found place for that, too. Oh yes, and some extended version of the Tower of CU.

Did the spoilers say anything about the HoH, the Faramir and Eoowyn romance? Merry's oath-swaring? I'd choose seeing any of that over Saruman's spiked wheel any day of the week!

*
*
*
*
End of spoiler-induced gushing and ranting :o :o
*
*

Of course the movie will have an audience! Some of the industry folks will just be surprised to find the theaters filled with middle-aged women instead of young male soccer fans You may be very right about the audience, tg, but somehow I doubt the industry folks will ever discover it if the audience includes whom you say. Seeing how long it took them to figure out that women actually were an important part of the LotR audience (although they never figured out *why*), I think they *may* perhaps clue in by the time "Yank IV", the sequel's sequel's sequel hits theatres. That's assuming the original ever actually hits theatres, which I'll of course join everyone here in both hoping and wishing that it will. :)

from Narya:
Meryl Streep et. al. did that little film called 'The Hours' that got a fair bit of acclaim but fairly limited release - in fact, I don't remember the last time Meryl Streep was in a 'big' movie

Funny - I'd thought "The Hours" was quite a big movie. It was on at my local multiplex (where the blockbusters, not the indie films, tend to be shown) for several weeks. And Nicole Kidman won the Best Actress Oscar for the role of Virginia Woolf. The film itself was nominated for Best Picture. And Julianne Moore was nominated for Best S.A. But no matter. The point is that big name movies other than Elijah's often go straight to video.
Not sure why, but I've a feeling "The Yank" may turn out to be quite successful. Provided it gets a theatre release, many people will go to see it simply because they are curious about the total change of role for EW.
(It's a pity about the title change, however - potential audiences will be less likely to realise what it's about. "The Yank" could mean more or less anything, and somehow it has a low-budget ring to it.)

wood, if you're still looking for ways to post pics, you can attach one to each post by using the "attach file" option and browsing your folders for the filename. But once you've attached a file, you have to submit the reply without previewing it - otherwise the attachment disappears! I found that out the hard way.

When I get round to scanning it, I'll post a very curious Elijahpic I've just found in a German magazine. Would like your opinions on what it signifies!

shireling,
thanks for good news about ROTK SEE! I missed the king's statue, Mordor scenes and Mouth of Sauron in theatrical release and happy to know they will be in for SEE!:k

About new The Hooligans pics.
I didn't get any shock. For football hooligans such a behavior is quite usual, even "normal". EW looks very realistic. I suppose one of the goals of this movie - to show the people how terrible and destructive is football hooliganism for personality - for soul and body, so such graphic is at the place. IMHO

Just a quickie in reply to Maeglian as I'm on my way to bed:)

SPOILERS!!
















Now the only F&S thing I miss is Sam thowing away his pots and pans. I do hope they've found place for that, too. Oh yes, and some extended version of the Tower of CU.

The article doesn't mention the pots & pans but I think it is in as there's a pic around of this scene & I'm almost sure it was briefly shown in one of the 'making-of' programmes.

Did the spoilers say anything about the HoH, the Faramir and Eoowyn romance? Merry's oath-swaring? I'd choose seeing any of that over Saruman's spiked wheel any day of the week!
Yes, Faramir & Eowyn were mentioned: "In the Houses of Healing Faramir lies near his death, in the care of loreth, an elderly nurse,
when Aragorn arrives and helps restore Faramir's health. "It is said in old lore that that the hands of a king are the hands of a healer" says Loreth. Then, after Faramir is revived, he meets Eowyn, recovering from her battle with the witch-king, and the two become attracted to each other, making more sense to the loving looks they exchange during Aragorn's coronation ceremony."

Merry's scene wasn't mentioned, I'm afraid, but a pic from that scene has popped up so often I wouldn't be surprised to see it there - hope so.
















END OF SPOILERS

Originally posted by serena
Funny - I'd thought "The Hours" was quite a big movie. It was on at my local multiplex (where the blockbusters, not the indie films, tend to be shown) for several weeks.
Don't know if this was the case with The Hours, but fairly often a "little" movie will create enough buzz that the bigger theaters decide maybe they should show it, too. I don't like it when this happens to our one little "art house" theater in town--I figure if they happen to pick up a popular movie, they ought to be able to make money on it without the multiplexes pushing their way in :rolleyes: .

OTOH, for its limited release ESOTSM was shown in two theaters here (for a metro area of about a half million people) and both of them were multiplexes that also show blockbusters. I think the lines are beginning to blur between the different kinds of theaters, at least in middle-America; a multiplex with 24 screens can show mostly big movies and still "afford" to show some small ones, too. While this might not be good for the more artsy theaters, I'd imagine it helps the small movies get more visibility.

Originally posted by serena
Funny - I'd thought "The Hours" was quite a big movie.

The Hours had a total production budget of $25 mil - given the three 'big' stars in it, that's extremely low by Hollywood standards. IIRC, they all worked on it for less than their usual fees. Big pictures are in the $80 - $100 mil range, or higher. It initially opened on 11 screens - that's right, 11 screens - and made $338,622 on it's opening weekend. It was on 11 screens for it's second weekend - 45 on it's third - 402 on it's fourth - and 502 on its fifth. By the end of its fifth weekend, it had grossed $13.8 million. In it's total run (over 5 months), it made $41.6 mil in the US.

By contrast, RotK opened on 3,703 screens, and made $34.4 million on it's first day.

I used "The Hours" as an example because it did have big names in it, but was a small movie - that nevertheless did get decent recognition and do well over time. It's not the kind of film that everyone likes, so it had to build an audience a different way, and inevitably didn't have even a fraction of the total audience of a blockbuster. But it was still a positive career move for all of the actors who participated in it, IMO.

I'm just recently began to get perspective on this topic on limited release etc etc. Within two miles of my home I can count seven theaters that show independent movies. Six of them pretty exclusively. And there are a lot more throughout the rest of the city----so I didn't really think much about the rest of the world not being able to see the films until fairly recently. When Narya mentioned The Hours that threw me a little as everybody I knows has seen that one in the theater. (I can even count myself, and I'm not much of a movie goer, which is why I never thought so much about it. I wasn't being insensitive to those suffering in the less cinema-centric areas!! Honest!!). But again, I didn't realize my good fortune, I guess.

But it does make me grateful that video is an option. If it weren't, then so many of these movies probably wouldn't even be made...and yet lots of actors really love doing them. There are some who will ONLY do them and turn up their noses at bigger studio releases. No one would invest in them if not for a possible video release to fall back on. I guess--they just wouldn't get made. Not only would the actors lose those opportunities, but many first time directors and screenwriters who have to work like anything to raise the money themselves to get those films made just wouldn't have the chance. I'm no expert but I've recently learned a little more about his stuff and have actually talked to actors who take much more pride in doing those small movies than in some of their bigger efforts (Though my sampling size so far is still small). And they feel they make unselfish contribution by participating in these smaller movies for a fraction of what they could get in a larger production.

Does anyone have trouble with access to independents at their local video store?? Is that a widespread problem?? I imagine it isn't always easy...

I'm really glad of Elijah's choice to do interesting projects rather than just look for the next blockbuster to star in. If he doesn't need the money it will probably make for a much more interesting life for him. And careerwise I've heard it said that you can often make a living a lot longer if you don't just go for the big leading man type roles all of the time. Building up variety stretches out a career..... I admire him for it and think he's smart. And his name will earn him so many offers in that arena. He can't be working for much money and they will treat him well....

The Yank stock going down because of Elijah? Buy now!! Enough people thought that he couldn't do Frodo. Now they think he can't do nothing but? Crazy!!:D

This is nothing against the ladies here, but I'm not sure if The Hours is a great example of a small movie gone big. The Hours was a Miramax movie, which changes the equation somewhat. All that "good WOM" and "building an audience" could very well be clever engineering on the part of the Miramax Oscar machine in order to rack up another precious nomination for Harvey Weinstein, and a statue for media darling Nicole Kidman. Other examples: Charlize Theron in Monster. Ditto for The Pianist, although that had the advantage of the Polanski legend (setting aside Polanski's *ahem* lawlessness). It's risky to do an Oscar push for a small movie since it does little for the theatrical release, but the rental revenue you get from plastering "ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATION" on the DVD cover makes up for it.

If there appears to be no potential Oscars, quick DVD cash is more attractive than pushing a small movie into the multiplex. So, bringing this back to Elijah: Elijah doesn't have much box office draw by himself, despite LotR. And Elijah certainly doesn't seem to be on the Oscar "short list."* So it doesn't look like anyone is going to push a movie on the Wood name alone. So unless Elijah works with a legend director (Spieldberg?), or works with an established box-office draw (Jim Carrey), or gets lucky with a sleeper hit, his small movies are likely to stay small.

---------
*By that, I mean he doesn't seem to have any residual Oscar buzz, as if "he should have won and got robbed" or summat. There is no backlog Oscar waiting for him -- probably because he hasn't paid enough dues in industrial strength yelling and screaming. In contrast, it seems like Sean Peen has had Oscar buzz for years.

EDIT: I'm cross-posting with Alyon. Alyon has a point. Is it really so important to be in the multiplex? For most actors, of course it is; that's where the red carpet and glitz is. But maybe for someone like Elijah, who likes to act but doesn't seem to care about the glitz or the money, DVD is not a bad way to go.

I wonder if DVD will be Elijah's equivalent of stage acting: stretches the acting range, can be quirky and off-the-wall, smaller distribution etc. And DVD has one advantage over stage -- the director can still use camera angels and close-ups. :D

Well, technically speaking the French were the enemy through most of the books in the Master and Commander series. ;) Besides, I could see how difficult it'd be for a movie to explain how the Americans and the British got on the warring path -- I'm reading the books and I don't get it either

:: evil grin ::

Haven't read the M&C series, but - Huh? The American Revolution wasn't that far in the past. I don't really understand all of what went into the War of 1812. The United States were a brand new wobbly conglomerate of little independent republics barely stitched together at the seams. The States were in danger of becoming economically dependent on Britain and France, partly because of restraint of trade and a British practice of stopping ships and pressing Americans into service in the Bitish navy. I believe that French privateers were also harrassing American shipping. France, in turn, having bailed out the former Colonies during the revolution, was satisfied that the US was unable to defend themselves and was happy to oblige - as long as the US came into the war against the British. Then, there was the all-fired arrogance of the States that they were in any shape, financially or militarily, to challenge the British Navy. The States also generously decided to liberate Canada from the British yoke (and got their posteriors booted back across the border in short order).

If the War of 1812 did anything, it made the States less dependent on Britain and France for trade and defense, and got them off our backs for the most part. I believe they also built a half-decent Navy.

but I do get that the Americans were kind of the underdogs. Which wouldn't quite work for the movie either ... so ... :p :D


:p :p :p

For starters, it'd be nice for someone in Hollywood to figure out once and for all that Chow Yuen Fatt, one of the greatest Asian actors of all time, is worth more than being the 2000th monosyllabilic kungfu master.

Hah. Tell me about it. Gone with the Wind is on TCM tonight, with stellar performances by Hattie McDaniel and Butterfly McQueen - McDaniel actually won an Oscar - the first ever given to a black actor. We lost so much with explicit and implicit segregation in this country: fine actors limited to roles as maids and butlers, when they could get work at all. Progress is slow, but there *has* been progress, thank <deity>.

And uh ... to paddle desperately back on topic ... wasn't Elijah down visiting in Mexico while Billy Boyd was filming M&C?

I thought they went to Mexico when Orlando Bloom was shooting? Was it Troy?

Am very curious about the pictures being discussed.
It looked like a guy too small to be involved in violence like that. As usual. <g> It looked pretty brutal, though.

I'll be interested to see what the movie is actually about. I doubt that the violence is gratuitous, though - chances are there will be some moral to the story, and possibly even some depth. As far as lower stock prices for the movie because they won't be able to accept Frodo as a hooligan, they haven't reckoned with the statistically insignificant hordes of middle-aged women following that boy's career. He'll bring a whole fan base of his own along with him. Brimson has already been surprised at the level of interest in his little movie because of The Lad.

~grumpy

Just back from seeing 'The Passion.' Maeglian, I share your take and concerns completely. I imagine that Elijah's response stems mostly from his friendship with MG (though it's also similar to that of men I know who've seen it).

Great discussions here! Love the language translation observations and commentaries (familiar vs. formal address, etc).

Blossom, your first impressions of Elijah's Frodo closely matches mine. Only for me, a defining moment happened but before the film opened. It was that very early on-set shot where Elijah is sitting on the lawn in his Frodo clothes, hands clasped about his knees, apparently in conversation (an interview in fact). That pic and the one of Frodo confronted by his foes at Weathertop sent chills of awe through me - that face WAS Frodo's, as I'd never quite been able to conjure.

i cant belive that to stocks went down
becuse (we) dont like frodo in this kind of movie??!!

frodo is not an actor he is a caracter a lovely on
Elijah is an actor a very very god on and with his
quality to show pain and anger with his expresiv
beutiful eyes i think he will be very god in the yank.

i think its the time all peopel in the movie busnise
to get there eyes oppen to this great actor i mean
he is not a beginner he has been acting since age
of eight i think!!

i also have to agree to this:if elijah sometimes does
movies wich isent that big but get its attention anyway
we will see him acting much longer i mean he will do what he realy
wants to do and love to do.i dont think elijah is that
kind of actor who does this for the money and red carpet and all!!
:) :)

I mean dident he went to torns fan oscar party insteed
of the the big oscarparty???

About the stock of the Yank going down because people can't see Elijah=Frodo as Elijah=Hooligan.

I think that a lot of that is a bit premature speculation. I've been looking on some of the British football sites and some of the discussions about the casting of Elijah were funny to read actually.
Mainly, they said that they couldn't believe Elijah could play a convincable hooligan. The discussions I saw were about stereotypes and Elijah does not fit the hooligan stereotype. They were discussing the actors who could play a hooligan and they were asking eachother questions like "what actor would you want to play you?"
The answers were names like Vin Diesel. :rolleyes:
So, sure... if you have an actor like Vin Diesel in mind, Elijah seems like an odd choice.

So, I wouldn't worry about the stock going down. I haven't seen the Yank script of course, but I'm willing to bet that the movie does indeed have a moral or something like that and is not just a "lets beat the crap out of the next guy - end of story" movie.

i totally agree with you moondancer!!

its a very BIG BIG difrens between van disel and elijah
so i can understand the dicussions on this pages!

Wow, those The Yank pics are coming in fast and plenty!

Moondancer, that is pretty funny, with those guys naming people like Vin Diesel because clearly, he wouldn't fit the character Elijah's playing. I've exchanged a few emails with the writer Dougie Brimson, and suffice it to say, this isn't a violence fest for the sake of being a violence fest. It's really, sorta, a tragedy or the falling of a person who has a lot of pent-up anger. Dougie calls it a "character piece moved by the plot" so right then and there, red lights were flashing in my head that went "Acting! Acting!", which is probably why Elijah got the part, and Vin Diesel did not, aside from the fact that Elijah's character is supposed to be in college and not a pumped-up macho man.

I'm sorry to hear many of you didn't enjoy "The Passion". I guess it's really a love it or hate it affair. I'm really the type of person who hates seeing violence onscreen when it's mindless violence (ie. James Bond, XXX, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc.), but if the violence is there to convey a GOOD message, then it's fine for me. That's why I didn't really mind the violence in LotR, nor will I mind it in The Yank, because there is an underlying theme worth expressing and if violent actions need to be shown in order to convey these themes properly, I'm okay with it.

[off-topic]Thanks, mel and grumpy. :)

Originally posted by zkgrumpy
If the War of 1812 did anything, it made the States less dependent on Britain and France for trade and defense, and got them off our backs for the most part. I believe they also built a half-decent Navy.

Yeah, the fledgling American Navy gave the British Navy quite a whupping, much to the dismay of the principal characters. But since I'm in a country that was once a British colony too I found that rather amusing. ;) :D I keep wanting to check the timelines to see when the British Empire expanded over the rest of the world; I really should actually do that checking and reading rather than just keep wanting to do that checking and reading. :rolleyes: [/off-topic]


I thought they went to Mexico when Orlando Bloom was shooting? Was it Troy?

Yes, but Elijah and Dom certainly visited Billy too while Billy was there filming M&C. :)

Smaller 'independent' movies ... they don't travel well outside the States. And DVDs ain't cheap outside the States. And pirates don't necessarily copy everything. So I would be very happy indeed if Elijah found a comfortable balance between commercial projects and whatever-else-makes-him-happy projects. ;) It's a juggling act that other actors manage, so I trust he'll figure that out too.


Shireling, thanks for the SEE DVD info! :)


Meanwhile, TORn has the Yank stuff up too.

SPOILER LINK - (black & white) images that had been talked about

http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/12806

i dosent work with the other pic
so here you go may be its to sexy but i think
we are old enough to take it dont you think !!??:D :D :D
i hope the link its okey!!
memoirsoftheshire.com
scroll down to image gallery click on elijah.
on page 8 with open shirt there is the one i meant maybe
you seen it before i havent. i think he looks so hot and sexy
im way of the topic here i know couldent help may self:rolleyes:
SORRY:rolleyes:

Yep, wood, if you put in pics as attachments, you can only do one per post (but here's a post in-between so you wouldn't be double-posting ;) ). If you want to do more than that, and have the pics show up right in the thread, you have to have some way to store them online. The space I use at ImageMagician isn't quite free, but I started using it when it was free, so I decided to go ahead and pay the whopping :eek: ;) cost of 75 cents a month so I wouldn't have to move everything and learn how to use a different site :rolleyes: . Some people here use free sites, which I thnk include Village Photos and Photo Bucket.

If you have the pic online, you can insert it into your post using the tags, but that won't work if the pic is on your hard drive. The only way to add a picture from your own computer is to make it an attachment. One fun thing about using attachments is that you can see how many people have downloaded the picture :p , so they do have their advantages (besides being easy to use).

[i]Originally posted by Moondancer
Mainly, they said that they couldn't believe Elijah could play a convincable hooligan. The discussions I saw were about stereotypes and Elijah does not fit the hooligan stereotype. They were discussing the actors who could play a hooligan and they were asking eachother questions like "what actor would you want to play you?"
Oh, those stereotypes again :rolleyes: . Like the reviewer who said Elijah didn't look like a 21-year-old even though he was 21 years old at the time :confused: . Go figure. IIRC, The Yank was another case of the director having a completely different "type" in mind, but having that changed by Elijah's audition.

I had a good :D at the "What actor would you want to play you?" question. I'd expect a "he-man" type actor to top that list :D , even more than if the question were "What actor do you think looks like a typical hooligan?" (Not that there's any conceit involved, there... oh, no, not a bit ;) ...)


ainon--As far as movies traveling outside the States, I've found several of Elijah's movies on VCD at yesasia.com that weren't available on DVD in the States. One of them--Flipper--has been put on DVD here since I bought the VCD there. But the Asian VCDs are still the only way I know of to get a (legitimate) copy of The Witness, Chain of Fools, and a screencappable version of Oliver Twist (thanks again, BTW). So don't be too discouraged :) !


[off-topic]Two lasting effects of the War of 1812 were to make the White House white (it had to be painted after it was partially burned in the war) and to make then-first-lady Dolly Madison famous enough to have a brand of cupcakes named after her ;) . [/off-topic]

Hi all!

Woo, what a lot of lovely posts! Impossible to reply to them all, although I kind’ve wanted to. I’ve just started a new job and so I thought I would leave it a while before I start manifesting my Lijah obsession big time, putting up posters, sighing loudly… maybe next week. ;)

Am getting v. excited by The Yank now. As someone said a few pages back, EW does look awfully cute in his bad boy shoes and spiky hair. I think it’s interesting (and probably beneficial) that The Sun seems to be following him around – it seems like the kind of film the readership would enjoy (imagine a cinema half full of EW swooners and half of Sun readers! Oh the humanity!!). Anyway from what we were discussing about whether it will go straight to video or not – I get the impression that the UK, at least, will get the benefit of at least some general release. What do my fellow UK-ers think?

Oh and I read in the Times this weekend that Rafe Spall, the son of Timothy Spall (aka Wormtail) is also going to be in the Yank. Seems like the film is attracting some pretty interesting talent.

I suppose that Italian film directed by Mel turned out to be a rumour? Not to get too personal about the Passion debate (because I know it’s a heated one) but so much controversy surrounds Gibson at the moment I don’t think it would be a good idea for Elijah to get embroiled in it… just my IMHO.

<off topic>
Someone mentioned the Charles Boyer Gaslight. I happen to have seen the original with Anton Walbrook, and IMVHO, he is even better. If you haven’t seen him in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp or The Red Shoes, check him out. Not only is he gorgeous but he has a delightful chilling manner which I think may be one of EW’s fortes one day as well. Not sure that EW would look so good in a moustache, though!
<ot>

from Hobbityme:
if the violence is there to convey a GOOD message, then it's fine for me. That's why I didn't really mind the violence in LotR, nor will I mind it in The Yank, because there is an underlying theme worth expressing and if violent actions need to be shown in order to convey these themes properly, I'm okay with it.

Me, too, Hobbityme. I totally support what you say in your last post - and thanks for the info about Dougie Brimson! I'd be surprised if Elijah took on a movie that features gratuitous violence, and from what I've heard of The Yank I'll be amazed (like Moondancer) if the violence in it doesn't convey a moral message of some kind. And surely Elijah is in that film precisely because he's NOT your stereotypical hooligan!? He's supposed not to fit the image, at least at the start - that's the whole point, isn't it? The thought of "real" hooligans being asked if he fits their self-image is too funny for words :D

And thanks for reminding us about the violence in LOTR. There is an awful lot of it in all three movies, and no-one here seems to object to that - or do they? (Do tell!) We seem to see the point of the violence in LOTR, films and books alike. Had PJ not been forced to ensure the films got a PG rating, there would probably have been a lot more blood on show (remember his Brain Dead, anyone? That was a hilarious spoof, featuring more blood than I've ever seen on screen, but does it glorify violence? No - it ridicules horror movies).
OK, the point I'm trying to make is that violence is objectionable, and likely to desensitise people, only if it's included for cheap thrills - as is sadly the case with huge numbers of movies/TV series etc. that feature brutality for the sake of brutality. There I totally agree with Maeglian and others. But if, on the other hand, it's used to reinforce a moral point, then it's far more likely to put people OFF violence of all kinds, including war. There have been many brutal war films and novels that are hugely anti-war. What about the First World War poets - Siegfried Sassoon, Wilfred Owen, Rupert Brooke ...? Their poems speak of violence and horror, but do they glorify those things? Quite the reverse. If artists turn their backs on the violence that has been (sadly) all too real throughout history, if they pretend it doesn't exist, then the perpetrators will think they can continue unchecked. Art is one of the most effective ways to change people's views, but it can't do that if it ignores half of what goes on. It's the artist's duty to hold up a mirror to society, to the truth. And although I don't like every single aspect of MG's film, it succeeds brilliantly in depicting some attitudes that have been all too horribly evident recently in, for example, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. The attitudes of those soldiers in the film were only too familiar. But I can't imagine any sane person on earth coming away from that film and wanting to emulate them. Or feeling less sensitive to what violence really means.

Ahem. Changing the subject:

from Random:
I think it’s interesting (and probably beneficial) that The Sun seems to be following him around – it seems like the kind of film the readership would enjoy (imagine a cinema half full of EW swooners and half of Sun readers! Oh the humanity!!).

Yessss! Could be a whole new fanbase for The Lad. :D :D

My take on EW’s career path: I wouldn’t be surprised if he takes a similar road to Johnny Depp, who as a young man blessed with both gorgeous features that were nonetheless not a typical Hollywood leading man’s face and real acting talent decided to take the path of independent films, working with true legends in the indie world such as John Waters and Jim Jarmuch (sp?). He’s done the occasional big-studio production (From Hell) and worked very closely with a big-studio director with an indie heart, Tim Burton. Now, EW has had his big breakthrough performance in LotR (much as Depp did in “21 Jump Street”), and he seems to already be sticking with the independent films that appeal to him. If he’s lucky, he’ll find himself a top-notch director he can trust to showcase him in roles that will demonstrate his acting talents (as much as I like Robert Rodriguez’s work, I don’t rank him in the top-notch category yet).

As for the violence in LotR, the big battle sequences, although impressive, didn’t strike me as overtly violent. The smaller the skirmishes got, the closer the camera got as well, and the more violent things became. For me, the most startling violence in the films happened in RotK, between Gollum and Frodo/Sam. The brutal nature of their fistfighting/choking/beating with pots was more striking because we had gotten to know both participants in the fight and had felt pity/compassion for the supposed villian. Whereas in all the other fights/battles, the opposing forces were nameless Orcs/Uruk-Hais, and we didn’t care what happened to them. As for blood and gore, again the most striking use amidst all the decapitations of Orcs and flying arrows was the sight of Frodo’s hand slick with red blood coming out in arterial spurts. That use of color after only seeing the grey wastelands of Mordor was heartwrenching.

Interesting discussion of violence in the films--thanks to all. I still find that for me the most violent moment of all is Sam's treatment of Gollum at the beginning of TTT in the "taming of Smeagol" scenes. When Sam jerks the rope around Gollum's neck and yanks him to the ground with it I still gasp--it is just so personal, and so brutal. The first time I saw it I was really horrified.

I agree with those who've said, above, that the actual slaughter that is so in-your-face throughout the film trilogy is muted somewhat by the lack of red blood (which is what enabled PJ to get the PG13 rating). Yet there is still something violent, to me, in the sheer amount of the exposure, and the noise and the rage and the scale of what we're seeing. Yes, it serves the story, and yes, it's either depicted or implied in the books, but if I were asked to trim a few minutes from any of the films I know just where I would start.

I've had an unexpected reminder of how differently we perceive violence when I sat down the other day to watch "The Faculty" with my daughters, 12 and 15. My error entirely, I admit it! I had forgotten the film was rated R, and why, and despite the girls' interest in seeing Elijah Wood in a non-Frodo, non-child role, we shut the tape off after the first attack on one of the teachers. They just couldn't deal with the tension and the gore, no matter how it was intended to come across (as a spoof, or a semi-comic homage, or whatever).

I'm not sorry to find they still have such sensibilities, but it was a surprising reminder of how much we take violence in films for granted. (I've seen the film once before but this time I didn't finish it either.)

I joined The Yank's yahoogroup, and here's one of today's posts, apparently from someone who was an extra on the film (spelling mistakes and so on are theirs):

Just had a couple of days working in Bermondsey with most of the cast including Elijah Wood and Charlie Hunnam so thought I'd join the group to let you all know how it went.

They're both good lads and not 'starry' like you'd imagine. Not sure where the scene we did fits into the story but EW is certainly a top actor. He went from being sh*t scared to pshycho and carried it off really well. Shame I can't say the same about Charlies cockney accent. Its well muggy. We were filming a row between the 'West Ham' and 'Birmingham' firms but I got bored in the end and came home as they were taking forever after one of the extras had his nose broken the other day during a fight scene and now they're all terrified. Should look ok but it could have been much, much better. Some of the clothes were well off.

Few rumours flying around; there's been a few problems with the actors taking things too seriously off set and I heard that Charlie Hunnam had to be dragged off a papprazzi fella the other day after he'd sneaked onto the set. I was also told that the director has had a big fallout with the writer Dougie Brimson. Apparently on the rare occasions he does visit the set they don't speak at all. If true, it would explain why so many things were clearly being wrong. He certainly wasn't on set anyway which was a shame as he was the bloke I really wanted to meet.



Edit: Someone on another group just said that the "credit card widthwise in the mouth" bit is called a Chelsea smile. It apparently really hurts when the card is pulled out (and hence, the blood in the corners of his mouth). BTW, some lovely new onset photos at **the place that shall not be named**

hallo!!
lovely new pics! i realy is beginning to
be exaitade by this movie
were do i find this gruop?

about the violence in lotr i think the violence i reacted to
is betwen gollum and frodo and gollum sam as some body
sad before i think it was sharpes girl a write something about it and i agree with you!!

I'll PM the link for joining The Yank group to you, wood.

Hi, dear ladies... I don't know, if you see already this new pic from The Hooligans... It's of a good quality...

About violence in LOTR.
IMHO, this movie is violent, especially ROTK. But for me the most difficult moments to watch are whose where the violence is personal. I didn't care much about grandious panoramas of Pellenor battle where crowds of men on orcs clashed in dead fight. But I feel real pain when they show me a wounded defender of Minas-Tirith who helplessly lies on cobble stones of the street while men and orcs run us the street and tread upon him... Or in Osgiliath - when the wounded Mardil is waiting for the dead stroke of the orc leader... or Frodo's face just after Shelob bited him - this moment is so naturalistic and violent that sometimes I simply close my eyes - can't watch it.

Re: Oh, the humanity!
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :::: giggle ::::

Re: LotR violins:

There are some places where I have to close my eyes. Boramir getting hit repeatedly with arrows is one, though the scene is so beautifully done that it's hard *not* to watch. Another is the place in Osgiliath that someone already mentioned, where the older man is lying on the ground and gets killed. The other is when Faramir's men are beating Gollum. It's amazing, because it's not even a real live actor - though maybe there's a sense that it really was - Andy Serkis was the one who tried to crawl away and ended up under the rock. I wonder if people who didn't know that there was an actor behind Gollum had the same reaction. In any case, I probably felt exactly the way the scene was supposed to make us feel - torn between pity and revulsion and outrage - just like Frodo.

Thanks to all who posted pics or pm'd links! The pics are great!

Wouldn't it just bust the Academy's buttons if Elijah turned in an award-winning performance in a little indie film that swept all the awards next year? There would be a massive chorus of "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo!" from the viewing public.


Re: Pics on "The Site that Shall Not Be Named" for whatever reason: OH MY <insert name of deity here>!!!

Re: The Yank: Not sure I can watch this, judging from the pics, even if it does get a theatrical release. It looks like it's going to be pretty graphic.

SPOILERS!! (cleverly hidden with disappearing ink)











Does anyone want to speculate on how the movie ends? If The Lad's character recovers his sanity, or if he gets killed? Does anyone know? How far along are they in shooting?



End SPOILERS

~grumpyandshouldbeworking (I now have a new scanner and digital camera.)(Be afraid.)(Be very afraid):::: evil cackle ::::

zkgrumpy,
I have the same question about The Hooligans ending!!! Are we doomed to the "unhappy end" for our boy again?:confused: :D I'm a bit tired to cry my eyes out at the end of his movies.:D Well, I intend to see The Hooligans when they are on screens, but, sincerely saying, I would prefer to be prepared what to wait. Oh, the best variant would be to read a script before watching, of course.

At the end of April I will go to see "The Eternal Sunshine" (it starts in Russia finally!) and I'm very glad that I had a chance to read its script already. Now I'm well prepared for watching the movie and there is a high probability that I'll like it, because I liked the script very much.

Well, here is one more impressive pic from TH

Keep in mind, Rikka, that Charlie Kaufman's orignal ESOTSM script is quite different in places from the eventual film. But all of the same elements are there, and I'm sure you will enjoy it. I ended up seeing it 3 times and liked it each time.

Isn't it interesting how our reactions to violence are tempered by the circumstances? What you said, Rikka, is so true. Violence against orcs in ROTK is "acceptable", because they are not human, they are "the bad guys and deserve it" and they are a mindless mob of evil, not individuals. But when the violence is perpetrated on someone we've begun to have a "relationship" with, like Gollum or Mardil or especially Frodo, it shocks and upsets us. That's why I think that the violence in Hooligans (I'm gonna call it that as long as I can get away it, darnit!) will be far different, even if it is within the context of the story. For now, those pictures of a bloodied, beautiful young man are not Elijah playing a character (because you don't know a lot about that character yet). They're Elijah. That creates its own set of reactions in us.

That makes me wonder how objective I'd be able to be if he were to play a completely evil, worthless scum type. If he were to, say, shoot a policeman, would I shudder in horror...or think....hey, the guy probably deserved it!

hay!!
you have a point there achila
its easyer to take violence if the persone is very bad.
We dont know any thing about elijahas caracter
there for to see this later pics for ex.when he stands alone against the wall bleding, its hard to see.becuse to me its elijah stands there not the caracter he playes,just becuse i dont
know anything about the caracter:

oh jess i repeting myself hope you understand what i mean
again its easyer to think in swedish that it is to write in
english but i having a realy god time with you all
becuse so far you all have undertode me. lucky me

love to you all

Oh, Rikka, what a picture!!!

OK...

Is The Lad in character? He's smoking, and he looks very convincingly mean and upset - take a look at those eyebrows!

If he's *not* in character, would someone please give the boy a big hug and a glass of milk and some chocolate chip cookies?

Geez. I'd love to know more about that picture - if he was taking a break, if he was mad at the director, if he was in character and his character was taking a break, if the photographer caught him in a very private unguarded moment, or what was going on.

:::: waving hand wildly volunteering to bake him some chocolate-chip cookies ::::

~grumpy (I make a very decent fudge brownie, too...)(that assumes, of course, that I get to give him the big hug)(Unless he's in character)(I'm getting confused now)

Originally posted by zkgrumpy
Is The Lad in character? He's smoking...
Is he smoking a regular white cigarette (probably in character) or a little brown cigarette (probably not in character)? I can't even tell he's smoking in the picture, but if you can, maybe you can get a good enough look at what he's smoking...?

Wow, a thousand thanks for those pics, ladies!
It's hard to imagine Elijah standing around alone between takes with that desperate expression on his face, especially while being photographed, so I'd guess he's in character. Some more great acting coming up for our delight? He really does look the part there :). But yes, it hurts to see him looking hurt ....
... avoids getting into discussion of whether it's morally OK only to care about those we care about getting hurt .....

Achila, I just love this quote :k :
They're both good lads and not 'starry' like you'd imagine. Not sure where the scene we did fits into the story but EW is certainly a top actor. He went from being sh*t scared to pshycho and carried it off really well.

Give that tough young London lad (I mean the writer for once) a hug! It's SO good to see such observations coming from someone who clearly knows a thing or two about the UK football scene - not to mention acting.

He almost makes up for the idiot reviewer whose words I came across the other day. This person claimed PJ's greatest achievement was getting Elijah Wood to stick rigidly to one single expression for 9 hours and 35 minutes of movie time.

Yawn. We've discussed this a thousand times, I know. But the more I read that sort of thing, the odder it becomes. I mean, hosts of reviewers - the intelligent ones - saw exactly the opposite. So did PJ, which is why he kept on doing those close-ups of Elijah: he cast him because of his extraordinary expressiveness, not the reverse! As we all know, Elijah is the very LAST person in LOTR to be deemed expressionless. I can think of more than one of his fellow actors whose faces really did scarcely move a muscle - but have any of them been accused of having only one expression? Have they hell. Why not? Because they have small (i.e. normal-sized) eyes. Elijah has huge eyes, and people are mesmerised by them - some to the extent that they fail to see, or rather remember, the rest of his face. All that remains in what passes for their minds is the image of those eyes looking, as they remember it, terrified. And all they care about in the review is finding a few clever one-liners, and never let the truth get in the way of those, folks.

So to counter that, here's a nice little snippet from an article about Stephen Sommers's "Van Helsing" film, which has just finished shooting - in Prague!:
from Stephen Sommers:
"With most of my movies, I finish a draft and give it to my editor, Bob (Ducsay), and right away he says it's going to be Elijah Wood or Brendan Fraser. This time I turned to him and said, 'Who is it?' – and he said, 'Hugh Jackman.'
Good to know the "Huck" team still loves Elijah!

Originally posted by serena
...But yes, it hurts to see him looking hurt ....
That "Chelsea smile" description just makes me shudder--human beings can show a lot of creativity in finding ways to cause pain to other human beings... :( And if the violence in the movie makes a few people think about their own part in it, it'll be worthwhile (IMHO). I mean, the credit card thing isn't up there with being drawn and quartered, but somehow it seems to me to have the same kind of mentality behind it--causing pain for its own sake.

On the violence discussion--If a movie has a purpose behind it, I won't argue against a high level of violence. But even if I think the movie is doing the right thing, I personally may not be able to watch it. Against my better judgement, I went to one of the Lethal Weapon movies with a friend who was a Mel Gibson swooner at the time--she had fun, and I had nightmares for the next three days. And there were parents who brought little kids along--easier than getting a babysitter, maybe :( ? So, Flourish, I'd say you can not only be glad that your children aren't desensitized to violence, but be proud of your parenting that has allowed them to be that way.

Give that tough young London lad (I mean the writer for once) a hug! It's SO good to see such observations coming from someone who clearly knows a thing or two about the UK football scene - not to mention acting.
Ditto :) ! Also, I <g> over the part of the quote that says a lot of the clothes are "well off" (I think I'm getting the meaning straight :p ). Might be fun to be on the other end of the geek-o-meter for once. I mean, I sure won't be able to tell if the clothes are "well off"! Could the theaters (in Europe, anyway) be filled with people saying, "Oh, gawd, look at those clothes!" the way [some of us ;) ] cringed at lavender Lothlorien or AATF*?


(*Arwen at the Ford)


This person claimed PJ's greatest achievement was getting Elijah Wood to stick rigidly to one single expression for 9 hours and 35 minutes of movie time.
Hmmm.... the reviewer obviously wasn't paying much attention--Elijah on-sceen for 9 hours and 35 minutes? I wish!! :p

Good to know the "Huck" team still loves Elijah!
Yes, and nice to see some of the people who've worked with him "casually" toss his name into conversation like that :) . It's a good kind of publicity, I'd think. Considering Brendan Fraser starred in Sommer's blockbuster "Mummy" movies, it says something about his appreciation of what Elijah did for his career to mention the two of them together (for the people who haven't heard him talk about it in the Huck Finn director's commentary ;) ).

---------

i totally agrre with you grumpy!!
i can help you bake if i can give him a big hug too

from what i can see the cigarette is wite so he is probably be in caracter
i also want to know all about the pics!!
:eek: :eek: :D :D

I've been catching up with all your fantastic discussions here, over the last few days, while I've been away in Italy...
Achila,
I was interested to read about the shares in "Hooligans" (yes, a much more descriptive title, imo ) and that triggered a memory in me of finding a site where you could actually invest in your favourite actor !!...and here it is :-

Shares in Elijah (http://movies.hsx.com/servlet/SecurityDetail?symbol=EWOOD)

...so get your money out, girls...here's a man worth investing in... yes ? no ? :D

As for "Hooligans" being over-violent and de-sensitising the audience...well, I, for one, think that you can't really do a film about football hooligans without showing their very violent tendencies...and most sane people won't be encouraged to go out and beat people up because they've seen it in the movies...there are a few insane people out there however, but they would probably do it anyway, movie or not !!

The closest film I can compare this to, ( and the fact that Elijah is in it ), is maybe Ewan McGregor doing "Trainspotting"...now there was a film dealing in very graphic detail, with the drug-taking habits of heroin addicts in Glasgow ...it turned out to be very compelling indeed, and in no way did it glamourise drugs at all, quite the opposite in fact - if anyone wanted to take heroin after seeing that film, then they would surely need their heads examining - but at the same time, the film gathered a reputation as a small independent film, absolutely stunning in its accuracy in portraying a very seedy underworld that ordinary people never see, and yet still managed to get you very close to its characters, and be very amusing and endearing at the same time...

I'm SO hoping that "Hooligans" will be a football-fan version of "Trainspotting"...that film certainly did Ewan no harm at all, in fact, IIRC, it made all the differance to his career in Hollywood...after that, he was a star !!

Sharpe's Girl,
Your comments about wanting EJW to follow Johnny Depp's example of a career-path, echo my sentiments totally...I know I've commented on this several times, being an admirer of both actors....nothing would excite me more than have Elijah do interesting and quirky roles that both stretch him as an actor, prove to everyone else that he is a creative actor capable of many, many good things, and keep his own interest stimulated as well...nothing worse than a jaded actor, imo !!

Flourish,
The most graphically violent scene in LOTR, for me anyway, was Faramir's men beating up poor Gollum...and not Sam mistreating him at the beginning of TTT...and I think that the reason that I didn't get shocked by that was because it is in the book, and therefore I was prepared for it...whereas the scene with Faramir's men wasn't, and therefore that came as a shock...even though Gollom is basically meant to be a bad character, he IS very complex, and the beating he gets in TTT, really made me wince on his behalf...I don't think that had to be SO graphic...

Interesting comments about the amount of films that go straight to DVD...I didn't realise that so many films go that way either, but Alyon's point about the fact that this does mean that many more good films actually get made, is a very apt and pertinent one, imo..."Donnie Darko" is one film that comes to mind as an example of a very small independent film getting very good reviews and growing in popularity by means of WoM...I know that this film did get a cinema release, but if it weren't for the mass of other films that go straight to DVD, we wouldn't get to see films like it even being made, because all the funding would be geared to guaranteed blockbusters..even LOTR may not have been made, because New Line would not have had the finances to take the risk....so I think we should accept that straight-to-cable and DVD movies are the oil that keeps the industry running...

Thank you for the compliment, tg!:o Undeserved but much appreciated.;)

Lady Wendy, and the others who mentioned Gollum getting beaten up by Faramir's men, I had, in fact, forgotten that scene, and it ranks right up there on the violence meter, you're right. I guess I had too many bones to pick with TTT to have watched it as many times as FOTR or ROTK, and to this day my memory of it is not as sharp. One of those bones was the fact that the REAL Faramir would never have allowed such brutality!:eek:

But I won't go there.

Originally posted by Lady Wendy
I was interested to read about the shares in "Hooligans" (yes, a much more descriptive title, imo ) and that triggered a memory in me of finding a site where you could actually invest in your favourite actor !!...and here it is :-

Shares in Elijah (http://movies.hsx.com/servlet/SecurityDetail?symbol=EWOOD)

...so get your money out, girls...here's a man worth investing in... yes ? no ? :D
Lady Wendy, that's quite a site--I could see it being seriously addicting :p ! One of those sites that make me marvel at how much effort people put into them :eek: ! Could be a good way to learn about trading without risking any real money for completely ignorant people [like me ;) ].

And from Elijah's page it's easy to click onto some of his upcoming movies and see how they've been "trading"--Happy Feet seems to be on the way up! :) BTW not a bad picture of "the Lad" on the page Lady Wendy linked to. :)

The most graphically violent scene in LOTR, for me anyway, was Faramir's men beating up poor Gollum...and not Sam mistreating him at the beginning of TTT...and I think that the reason that I didn't get shocked by that was because it is in the book, and therefore I was prepared for it...whereas the scene with Faramir's men wasn't, and therefore that came as a shock...
I have to admit that I haven't watched the TTT EE very often, so can't make much of a comparison to the beating Gollum receives from Faramir's men--IMHO, its main purpose is to give Gollum even more reason to feel that Frodo has betrayed him. It might sound a bit strange, but I think the fact that the beating from Faramir's men is in the EE makes it less worrisome to me--since almost everyone who watches the EE is a fan of some sort already, I guess I don't worry so much about how "regular" moviegoers will see the characters. With movie-Sam, OTOH, there are times I want to stand up in the theater and tell everyone, "Sam's not really like that!" :(

I think one reason Sam's violence shakes me--in both TTT and RotK--is that it's so different from what happens in the book. Book-Sam doesn't like or trust Gollum, but he doesn't treat him the way movie-Sam does. He ties the rope around Gollum's ankle rather than his neck, and when Frodo removes the rope he finds it's surprisingly loose. Book-Sam does make the suggestion of just tying Gollum up and leaving him, but Frodo responds, "If we kill him we must kill him outright"--a rather chilling statement, but I tihnk it shows another instance of Frodo looking past the immediate moment more than Sam does. IMVHO, book-Sam doesn't think of the slow death Gollum would suffer if they did as he suggested--he just wants him to stop "sneaking after" them, and tying him up is the first solution that comes to his mind. (To be fair, I think that's how movie-Sam is thinking at that moment, too.)

And in the book, I can't think of a time when Sam beats Gollum or loses control of his anger the way he does in the movie. Sam's anger and violence do seem to be something the movie uses to give Frodo a reason to send him away. And as has been brought up before, I have to think that some of movie-Sam's violence is a result of his being around the [new!improved!more powerful!faster-acting!farther-reaching!] movie-Ring.

...but if it weren't for the mass of other films that go straight to DVD, we wouldn't get to see films like it even being made, because all the funding would be geared to guaranteed blockbusters..even LOTR may not have been made, because New Line would not have had the finances to take the risk....so I think we should accept that straight-to-cable and DVD movies are the oil that keeps the industry running...
I know a little more about the publishing industry than the moviemaking one, and IMHO there's been a similar trend in both of them for some years now--already-big companies buying and/or taking over smaller ones to become even bigger, and the top positions being held by financial experts rather than people who know good writing or filmmaking. And that seems to lead to less risk-taking--maybe because they can't tell a good risk from a bad one? In publishing, that's led to people with big names (whether as authors or not) having their books bought with huge advances, while unknowns have a harder and harder time becoming "known." In films, IMHO, it's led to bad sequels of popular movies, and bad remakes of TV shows: anything with a "name" that might bring people in on opening weekend. I've thought of independent filmmakers as the movie-industry equivalent of small presses in the publishing industry, giving an outlet for creative people who take risks the big companies won't touch. Many of the best books come from small presses these days. But this discussion has made me think about the DVD market playing a similar role, in making some of the financial number-crunchers more confident that they at least won't lose money on a project.

Tg said:
And in the book, I can't think of a time when Sam beats Gollum or loses control of his anger the way he does in the movie.

But remember in the book when Sam beats Gollum so hard with his oaken stave that he breaks it over Gollum's back? When he turns back he finds that Shelob has stung Frodo, and I think he blames himself a little, thinking that if he hadn't been so enraged he might have saved Frodo.

This person claimed PJ's greatest achievement was getting Elijah Wood to stick rigidly to one single expression for 9 hours and 35 minutes of movie time.

That's hysterical! Funnily enough I have been searching for a review I read around TTT I think. The reviewer said, IIRC

"...Leave it to Elijah Wood to invent new facial expressions...his piping voice is perfect for hobbit Frodo..."

I'd love to see that review again! anybody know the one I mean?

I've lot's more I'd like to post, but I'm going to be late for work!

Later,
Honey!

Very interesting discussion on violence in movies and in LotR, everyone. Thank you - I'm reading even when I don't have time to post much.

Just popping in now in a hurry to say:

Happy birthday, Erendis! :)
May the camera angels and everyone else be especially nice to you today!

Happy Birthday, erendis! :k


A link to an article at TORn about our boy's future in the music industry (http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1082131049) :)


Originally posted by tgshaw
ainon--As far as movies traveling outside the States, I've found several of Elijah's movies on VCD at yesasia.com that weren't available on DVD in the States. One of them--Flipper--has been put on DVD here since I bought the VCD there. But the Asian VCDs are still the only way I know of to get a (legitimate) copy of The Witness, Chain of Fools, and a screencappable version of Oliver Twist (thanks again, BTW). So don't be too discouraged :) !


Ehem ... I wouldn't exactly think of that copy of 'Witness' a.k.a. the first story in the 'Perverse Destiny III' compilation as being ... erm .. legitimate. ;) The others are, though. :) Alas, yesasia.com offers a bargain price for US buyers, but not for Asians. Frustrating situation, that. :p


Violence in movies -- I would expect a good director like PJ to know when and where to utilise violence, and to use it appropriately to ensure the audience is repelled by the having to witness it. Especially war violence, as depicted in movies like 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Gladiator', and even 'Master and Commander' -- they're all about letting the audience know that there's nothing glorious nor cool about the circumstances, everyone there is just fighting for his life and would be happy to get out of the melee with all limbs intact. I was content that PJ kept to that standard in LotR.

Violence in horror movies OTOH tends to be about ensuring maximum gross-out quesiness as gruesomely possible, preferably in ways that involve dismemberment, sharp objects in eye sockets, bursting torsos, and mangling loss of limbs. It's an artform in itself, if one might want to call such nonsense 'art'. :p But well, that's the way that genre works. :rolleyes: Although you have to admit sometimes it can be amusing. The 'Evil Dead' series, anyone? :D

The guy who plays the leader of the mumakil army in RotK bears something of a resemblance to Bruce Campbell (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0132257/), I thought.

Happy birthday, Erendis!

from ainon:
I would expect a good director like PJ to know when and where to utilise violence, and to use it appropriately to ensure the audience is repelled by having to witness it.

My thoughts entirely, ainon - thanks!
Just saw Gegen die Wand (Against the Wall), a film by and about young ethnic Turkish Germans which won the Golden Bear in Berlin. A lot of violence (to oneself included), graphically depicted and all too realistic, but the way the characters eventually rose above that and became humane was the crux of the story. It couldn't have been told without that violence.

On the hooligans movie, the London extra Achila quoted also commented that Dougie Brimson and the director aren't speaking. Oh dear. That does not bode well. Hope they reach a compromise (or that that friction sparks extra creativity! Can always hope ....)

Wonderful posts from everyone once again :). Loved your comments about Trainspotting, Lady Wendy. That was a truly original and great film, even if it did succeed in making viewers throw up :eek:

One thing I've been wondering about is why some of us think EW is a director's actor, i.e. needs a good director in order to reach his full acting potential (the implication being that he needs direction more than some others do). I was struck by the comments from Rob Reiner (North):
He's like a prodigy in a way. You know, I've worked with a lot of other young actors, and it's difficult to get a good performance at times. You have to be very careful...and help them along and spoon-feed them. But with Elijah, that's not the case. I mean, he really comes to the part full-blown. You give him a little tiny adjustment in a scene, and he takes it as if he's been acting 30 or 40 years."
There are similar comments from many other directors (most notably Stephen Sommers on the Huck commentary track, who emphasises Elijah's almost uncanny natural acting abilities).

I'd guess all actors need some input from the director, who is of course seeing the whole picture, and all need to discuss the characters and their motivation in depth, but I've always seen Elijah as someone who actually needs minimal interference once it comes to rehearsal and shooting. Black and White was a new and none too successful departure for him, but there (unlike elsewhere) he was expected to improvise speech and action (I suspect his main problem there was the contrast between himself and all the others: he looked and sounded improbably young and innocent - and small - in that company).

So, all who know a thing or two about film (and there are obviously some in this thread!), what do you think?

Serena,
One thing I've been wondering about is why some of us think EW is a director's actor, i.e. needs a good director in order to reach his full acting potential (the implication being that he needs direction more than some others do).

Well, I don't pretend to know zip about the ins and outs of acting methods, but I would guess that what people mean by Elijah being a Director's actor, is that he takes direction very well, and doesn't let any of his own ego get in the way of a good performance..in other words he can lose himself quite easily into the persona of the character he is portraying...and I do know that almost every director that he has worked with has had the same praise for him in this respect...
So far from him needing more direction, he actually needs less...he is their favourite type of actor, ie one that doesn't need spoon-feeding to get what the Director wants...

At least this is how I see him...( apart from a beautiful, sexy, and talented young man, I mean...:rolleyes: )

Am I making sense ?

YOU DO MAKE SENSE LADY WENDY AT LEAST TO ME!!!!!

that is exacly how i see him too!!:D :D
and for the other thing the directors i dont now,but
what you sad sounds that you and anybody else knows
what you are talking about!!I know one thing for sure if the director likes to do closeups like pj,filming elijah with this gourges eyes most
be like filming in heaven!!

happy birthday Erendis!!
:k :k

I'm fairly tolerant of violence in movies, depending on how it's handled. I wasn't bothered by the violence in the first Lethal Weapon movie, because I felt it served the plot. I did feel the fist fest at the end went on far too long. :p But I find that if the gore is too explicit I end up with "how'd they do that?" speculations that completely knock me out of the story. Same with sex in movies - goes past a certain point and I start thinking about how the actress filming this felt about rolling around that intimately with a mere aquaintance or how the actors' significant others would feel watching it or otherwise thinking about the production rather than the product and I am pushed right out of that fantasy.

The ancient greeks called explicit sex or violence "obscene", which meant "off stage" or "outside the scene" (can't remember the specifics), and while they had no problems with erotica or what we would consider porn, it was not allowed in their more "serious" art, because they felt it spoiled the over-all artistic experience. And while there were pleanty of nasty, violent events in their stories, the gory ones happened off stage and were reported on. They believed the "impact" of that gore or sex would overwhelm the story and push the viewer away from the character's experiences into the viewer's own "gut response" to the gore or sex as an independent entity. That's how it works for me. :p

Thusfar most of Elijah's roles have managed to stop short of my personal "gut response" point, and I would prefer it to stay that way, but I can't tell going in how it'll work. I was concerned about the Ice Storm and Try Seventeen going in, from the sex end of things, and they both worked fine for me. And of course the violence in LOTR never overwhelmed the plot for me either, and that's about as violent an EW film as I've seen.

Like serena, I was a little unnerved that Dougie Brimson and the director aren't getting on - I have some respect for Brimson and I think he'd want the thing done right, so I hope the falling out isn't based on the director's approach to the violence! I really like angst (by the fannish definition of the word), and physical violence can feed into that beautifully if the gore doesn't get out of hand.

Originally posted by Lady Wendy
Well, I don't pretend to know zip about the ins and outs of acting methods, but I would guess that what people mean by Elijah being a Director's actor, is that he takes direction very well, and doesn't let any of his own ego get in the way of a good performance...

I dunno if that's what people mean, but sounds good to me! :D I think the phrase is also used to say that Elijah does better when the director works with him - I would argue that he does better when he's got someone to talk to about the role who has also thought about it. He doesn't need a director to tell him what to do, but (particularly when he was younger) if a director talked to him about his character and got him considering motivation and whatnot, that deepens his understanding of the character and so he gives a better performance.

Some actors actually sit down and write their character's "history" - they think about stuff their character went through that the story they're given doesn't cover, or they think about how their character experienced things that they aren't actually called to act or whatever. I suspect that sort of thing would work fairly well with Elijah, so long as he approached it "emotionally rather than intellectually," if you follow. Some method actors do that sort of thing and I think it inhibits them, because they end up trying to intellectually analyze, "Well, if the character experienced that at this age, he'd respond this way."

I think Elijah has to tred a fine line between approaching his role too intellectually and not getting that background exploration in - as he gets older he's got a better grasp of when exploring the character is to his benefit and when it won't help.

Happy Birthday, erendis!

http://www.classiccakes.net/CrownJewels.gif

((((Hugs)))) to the Faculty.

Sheryl

I don't presume to know Elijah's method of acting but it seems to me he likes to go into roles with the attitude of being the character, or living the character, rather than separating the two and just simply "acting" the character out. This may explain why he was simply so convincing as Frodo because in a sense, he was Frodo. I say this because in a recent interview (which I can't seem to place at the moment), he said that he didn't do any research for "The Yank" yet because his character is not supposed to know anything about the world of hooliganism so he wanted to act scenes without any knowledge about it, just like the character he's playing. And then he goes on to say that he'll go more in depth into it as his character progessively becomes more nad more involved with the scene.

I don't consider Elijah to be an actor who needs the right director to coax a good performance from him. I think that the term "director's actor" for me tends to mean that he's the type of actor who really respects and listens to the director and that he's just plain easy to work with. (Again, backed up by many of those comments that you lovely ladies have posted.)

he rally must love what he is doing. and
having a big selfconfidens in wat he is doing
i mean many of the big "stars" is arrogant
and such divas but he seamse always to laughing
and having good times with his co-stars and crue

do you understand what i mean?i just mumbling,
i hope you do!

it must be a joy for all too work with him,dont you think?

Saw ROTK on big-screen again last night (#5 - the last time, I guess). I feel compelled to report...:o (Sorry for changing subject.)

Still moved, still engaged emotionally, still find it a superb film. And still blown away by Elijah's performance in particular (despite being tired of the hype). Couldn't find Elijah at all, like others here have observed many times. Those we've heard make snide remarks about Elijah's Frodo, surely never 'got' Frodo either (at least that's so of the few I've heard of).

The theater was nearly full and, maybe because of the spurt of Spring warmth, the audience seemed restless (tending to chat - arrgh!). But by mid-way, they grew totally involved and silence prevailed. Among the 'chatters' was an elderly couple who commented (favorably) on the action throughout most of the film, and no on could hush them, out of respect. Another was seat neighbor - a woman of late middle age with long grey hair and a pleasant face, despite a serious, unsmiling expression. She was so engrossed as not to notice the background noise, and wept freely during several intervals. She also commented - muttering to herself about what was happening on the screen. Hmmm, I thought, there but for the grace of Eru... ;)

New stuff I noticed/thought this time -

> Elijah's brief gloating smile - almost a grimace - when he claims the ring could never have been book Frodo's. Book Frodo would have died first. Thanks to PJ for keeping Elijah from getting carried away with the idea of ring lust himself. (I'm still convinced that Elijah had an odd anti-
Frodo’s urge, at least toward the end of filming, and probably more so after. Possibly this was an unconscious reaction to the way Frodo's spirit naturally flowed through him?) If EW had the read the book, we might not have seen that expression, which I, personally, could have done without.

> Elijah's powerful and enigmatic 'I'm here, Sam' resonated with conflict - both resolve and doubt. His face and stance are equally... challenging.

> Frodo's immediate strike at Gollum when he returns to him after being torn from the Ring was to push him backward with palm-heel to Gollum's forehead - gut reaction. This was not a move to seize the Ring so much as to get Ring (and Gollum) into the fire. Failing that, he grapples with Gollum's hands to get at the Ring - to spare Gollum or to claim the Ring is our guess. Watching Frodo's face carefully this time, I did saw anxiety, desperation but not even a hint of desire, such as we say on the face of Smeagol as he attacked Deagol for the same jewel. Finally, I've decided - whatever Elijah's motivation at that instant Frolijah's was to fulfill his original task.

> Elijah's expression of Frodo's relief, from the moment Sam kneels beside him is sublime!!! It is so complete, heartfelt, one must take deep breaths with him (between tears). Frodo's virtue at that point is quite clear.

> Arwin's visibly waning at the wedding, her face quite piqued, and Aragorn recognizes this. Hadn't noticed before nor been able to understand King Aragorn's worried perusal of her face upon seeing her. Now the touching scene is shot with prevailing sadness.

> All four hobbits wear their Elvin cloaks at the Havens - (sob!)

Apologize for carrying on so :rolleyes:

now need to fell sorry naid!!
i know what you mean.
i have seen rotk many times now on vcr
( i know it s not legal, got on uffer godent help my self)
and i cry so hard every time
but i have to say elijahs face when he claims the ring oh
im lost for words!!!
oh not to say about his face when he layes in clow of the
eagel you could belive you were looking at on angel
and some people say he yous have on expressiv and it is to looked truobeld my god get glasses folks!!!!
:confused: :confused:

now i have to go to bed godnight to you all
and sleep well. i will be dreaming of a beutiful blue eyed
man who is very sexy and god looking:D :D
talk to you all tomorrow bye!!!

Happy Birthday, Erendis!!


Originally posted by hobbityme
I don't consider Elijah to be an actor who needs the right director to coax a good performance from him. I think that the term "director's actor" for me tends to mean that he's the type of actor who really respects and listens to the director and that he's just plain easy to work with. (Again, backed up by many of those comments that you lovely ladies have posted.)
Yes--I think some of the negative connotations came up when some folks thought he should have argued more with PJ than he did about how Frodo was portrayed. (And to stave off any "He should have read the book" comments ahead of time--Christopher Lee was the most knowledgeable, dedicated Tolkienite on the set, and his Saruman certainly didn't end up book canon :eek: !) Evidently Sean A. and, to a lesser degree, some of the other actors did argue about their characters. Elijah doesn't seem to have any problem discussing his characters during filming, but arguing just doesn't seem to be his style.

The other part of it, IMHO, is that he did start acting so young, and we still have those movies to look at. I think he was more dependant on the director when he was younger, which I'd think would be true of anyone. Most of the time I've mentioned this topic, I think it's usually been related to how I'm seeing him grow out of the "director dependence" he had when he was a child. IMHO, in his "kid movies" the quality of his acting depended a lot more on the quality of the director than it does now.

OTOH, I do think a great director can still pull a performance out of him that another director might not--mostly by not accepting from Elijah what would be good enough from someone else. It seems PJ was one of the directors who could push Elijah to the limits of what he was capable of, rather than what 99% of actors would be capable of. I think he got Elijah to some places emotionally that Elijah didn't even know were there, if you know what I mean. And that's how he's going to grow.

from naiad
Elijah's brief gloating smile - almost a grimace - when he claims the ring could never have been book Frodo's.
Exactly--it's not Frodo's at all, which I believe is the point. I'd been expecting to see that little smile on Frodo's face ever since we saw it on Isildur's in the prologue to FotR, when his confused, frightened expression changes to the "face" of the Ring and he says "No." IMHO, it's that smile that tells us Frodo has absolutely nothing to do with what's happening. That's the moment Tolkien compared to Frodo being crushed by a boulder. The Ring's been trying all along to beat Frodo down and finally manages it. It has him completely beaten, just in time to save itself from being destroyed and to bring every minion of Sauron to recapture it for its Master. It's the Ring that's gloating there--not Frodo!

That smile--along with the oddly quizzical look at Sam just prior to it (now that one sends shivers down my spine!!)--make me think of the sub-human intelligence that was bent on killing Sam in Osgiliath. I agree that we wouldn't see it in the book, because the Ring is different in the book--it doesn't operate on its own the way it does in the movies. In the movies the Ring actually seems to have emotions (anger, hatred, confusion, gloating), which IMHO isn't something we see at all in the book-Ring.

And, naiad, to back up a bit--I completely agree with you about the "I'm here, Sam," line: one of those complex mixes that contain so many emotions at once, which is exactly what Frodo would be feeling!!

---------------

ainon--**gasp**!! Do you mean to say that yesasia.com sells pirated VCDs :eek: ?? I'm making a bit of a joke by sounding more shocked than I really am, but I'll admit I'm surprised... I really did assume anything I bought from them would be legal. Naive American, eh :o ? I'm also surprised they'd charge Asians more than Americans--that hardly seems right :( . Gee, and I was really getting to like 'em...

----------------

And another :o to say to honey that, yes, I'd completely forgotten about Sam breaking his walking stick on Gollum's back [that deserves a second :o ]. Probably an effect of not having read LotR straight through for longer than I care to admit; I'm usually in the book to look for something specific or read about a certain topic.

Same with the movies. Because of the discussion about the violence of Faramir's men, I actually watched the TTT EE straight through last night--I couldn't even remember seeing some of the additional material before, although I know I watched it when it first came out. But it seems I always have a "purpose" when I put one of the movies into the DVD drive, too--a certain scene or two to check and/or screencap.

I did take some screencaps last night, but just hit the key without stopping the movie so got some good ones and some that are the equivalent of photographing the inside of your purse (and don't tell me I'm the only one who's ever done that :p ). And, ahem, I think I now have the aspect ratio thing working correctly with PowerDVD (I'm surprised no one pointed that out to me regarding the Faramir material -- another :o ). I assumed I'd want it set on "original source" but when I compared the caps with others it was obvious they were stretched--not as much as with WinDVD, but definitely there. So I changed the setting to "current window" and it seems to work fine. Is this what other PowerDVD users have found??

----And speaking of DVDs, can you believe that a week from now it will be one month til we have the RotK DVD? It's so wonderful not to have to wait til August :) .

Re - "He should have read the book" - Yes, Tg! And to flout my own words, Sir Ian M. read the book AND 'advised' PJ, but look what happened to his Gandalf nonetheless! - even more truncated than Frodo (in favor of Aragorn, with little fault to Viggo, it seems)!!

Re: the Ring's added sensibility in the film - Yes but - (sorry :) ) I think that added dimension wrought confusion to movie (as opposed to depth or complexity), which the screen writers insisted they were trying to avoid in rendering the book version.

Also, the 'bent on killing Sam' look - I didn't see it that way. To me, Frodo's expression was one of fending off (not by mortal stroke) one he could not recognize, in pure, terrified defense. I saw no malace there, nor recognition of Sam.

Mostly random stuff ahead!

Saw IT for the 9th time on Friday, and cried so hard I had a nasty headache all next day.

The gentleman who came in late and sat down in front of us, promptly nodded off :eek: He didn't wake up again till somewhere in the Grey Havens, but he still kept nodding off. My poor daughter was crying with the hobbits, and simultaneously laughing (silently!) My husband thought she'd really gone round the bend!

--------------------

TG, I like your analysis of that perfectly chilling little smile Frodo gives when he claims the Ring! That is definetly the Ring smiling there! And It's so satisfied! *chills*

----------

I think I saw a Froshadowing in "Avalon." Forgive me if I'm repeating what's already been said; it's all new to me! There is the scene where Grandpa Sam has resigned as head of the family, and Uncle Gabriel has tossed them all out of the house. As Michael Kay and his family ride away in the car, Michael (little 'Lijah) gets this sort of unfocussed look on his face like he's trying to figure out what just happened, and what it will mean. It immediatley struck me that it was a froshadowing of Frodo's look at the moment that Bilbo dissapears from the birhtday party!

------

Lady Wendy, on your recommendation I tried to get my husband to rent "Trainspotting" last night, but he rented my second choice, an Peter Jackson film "Heavenly Creatures" instead.

Interesting that this story involved two teen-aged girls romantically involved with each other, and there was no problem showing that. But when it comes to depicting Sam being... Sam and caring for his master with tender and INNOCENT love, PJ couldn't do it. Is it true that the studio heads kiboshed Hobbits holding hands, napping together and all that "mooshy" business, because the general audience might not get it? *le sigh* I suppose we should count our selves lucky for the amount of Sam-ness that did make it in!

----------

Everything is Illuminated Speculation to end

If Elijah has a double roll as his Grandfather Safran he will certainly have his, erm, hand full!

The use of humor in the story is really interesting. The first of Alex's letters had me laughing out loud, but by the end of the story the humor is all but dissapeared, and the story has got very sad. Actually there are parts of the plot that are going pretty much where I anticipated they would, but they gotten there in a very original way. I've only a few pages to go, but I'm not sure I can bear the end!

Honey! blathering on about a mess of stuff as usual

Regarding voilence. I have a high tolerance rate as long as it's fiction and I can keep telling myself it's only that.
If I see something horrible on the screen I keep telling myself - as a mantra:
itsonlyfiction itsnotreal itsonlymakebelief itsnotreal...
I didn't have any trouble with the voilence in LOTR but that movie Trainspotting is another matter. I have been wanting to see it because I've heard that it's a fantastic movie but the clips I saw from it were quite horrible so I haven't found the courage to rent the movie yet.
But...indeed...it's an excellent example that you don't need to look for a major blockbuster to get a break-through performance. McGregor's reputation as a good actor was set by Trainspotting.

Evidently Sean A. and, to a lesser degree, some of the other actors did argue about their characters. Elijah doesn't seem to have any problem discussing his characters during filming, but arguing just doesn't seem to be his style.

Agreed! I don't know Elijah at all of course but from what he and others say (in the interview with Jay Leno, he says that he does not get angry - I wish I could say the same), arguing about it does not seem to be his style. He worked closely with Peter to get Frodo just right and Peter did know how to treat him and give him his freedom as an actor while still keeping his eye on what he - as the director - wanted to see.
From interviews with Russell Crowe, I know that when a character is close to his heart, he's willing to fight for his character and he does tend to argue with directors if things don't feel right.
But it all depends on the director. If it's a good director, he knows how to get a good result out of his actors and you can't use the same tactic and approach on every actor or actress.
Most good actors need a good director who knows how to treat the cast.
Elijah is not the arguing type and he will give you a very good result anyway but a director who is willing to challenge him and push him will get excellent results. I'm just hoping that he will work with directors who are able to do just that: work together with Elijah Wood...directors who are smart enough to know how to tap into his talents and how to get the best results from him.
That's why I'm a little worried that he's working with a lot of first time directors. Elijah is experienced enough and talented enough to give good results but a magnificent director will get magnificent results out of him.
But the fact that those directors don't have experience does not have to mean anything of course and I'll just use the "wait and see" tactic on his next projects.

In his past, he has shown that he and the people surrounding him (his mother, manager,...?) have made some good choices within the limitations they had to work in.
As a child actor, the sort of roles you are offered are limited and within that limited choice, he made a couple of wise decisions...working with interesting people, not falling into the trap of doing the predictable kid movies -...
So, I'll just have to trust his judgement in the future that he will make wise choices within the limitations he has to work with (not being a typical male lead, still having a very young image...).
I've just finished the book Everything is Illuminated and I do think that this was a wise choice of Elijah. It's an impressive debut from the young author. A book with an interesting structure and style.

Originally posted by tgshaw
ainon--**gasp**!! Do you mean to say that yesasia.com sells pirated VCDs :eek: ?? I'm making a bit of a joke by sounding more shocked than I really am, but I'll admit I'm surprised... I really did assume anything I bought from them would be legal.

Should be. ;) But there is something awfully suspicious about 'Perverse Destiny' donchathink? :D That said there might be loopholes that make for such things to pass as legit. Or maybe some country had aired the show as part of the 'Perverse Destiny' series and that's how the VCD was made.

I'm also surprised they'd charge Asians more than Americans--that hardly seems right :( . Gee, and I was really getting to like 'em...

Aww, it ain't their fault. It's all down to currency exchange again. Take this, the difference between the US$ price and the MYR price: Fellowship of the Ring the novel (http://global.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/pid-1001863861/did-155/code-w/section-books/) Now, for that price, I can go to the movies 3 times if each ticket costs MYR10.00. But since books and DVDs are imported from the US, they're all sold at US prices converted to local prices - which is why I have to cough up a bloody painful MYR140.00 for a Region One DVD. That's 14 trips to the movies! :o For someone living in this part of the world, being a movie fan costs and means a lot . :(



Originally posted by Moondancer
From interviews with Russell Crowe, I know that when a character is close to his heart, he's willing to fight for his character and he does tend to argue with directors if things don't feel right.

I recall coming across an interview where he'd said that if at the end of the day the director still disagreed with him he'd drop the issue because the movie was the director's medium and he (the actor) was only there for the gig. I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it. And it does support the notion that every successful movies needs a very firm and sure director - which certainly describes Peter Jackson, and directors are the ones who're lauded when we think of the many difficult movies that manage to succeed in the end.

Btw, still on-topic, really! In my course of Master and Commander research I also remember coming across director Peter Weir's interview where he talked about a fresh kid actor in M&C (a very talented young boy named Max Pirkis) who had never done any acting before, but was a natural in front of the camera and who wasn't really interested in analysing how he was capable of the performance he was giving. Sound familiar? ;)


Honey, don't know if anyone resisted any "mooshy" business - I wouldn't be surprised if that were so. Then again I didn't feel the need for anything 'more' from the Frodo and Sam interactions anyway. Some things in the book feel rather dodgy when translated to the screen - even as someone who loves them both I admit that I might find it highly incredulous and cringe-worthy if I had to sit through them. It's one thing to read; another to see how (and if) the actors pull it off. :p :D That's just me, though. :)

But the relationship portrayed in 'Heavenly Creatures' is on another level altogether, I'd think. :eek:


Very encouraging reviews about 'Illuminated'. :) Thanks, my dear learned Faculty members. :k

Originally posted by honeyelf
Interesting that this story involved two teen-aged girls romantically involved with each other, and there was no problem showing that. But when it comes to depicting Sam being... Sam and caring for his master with tender and INNOCENT love, PJ couldn't do it. Is it true that the studio heads kiboshed Hobbits holding hands, napping together and all that "mooshy" business, because the general audience might not get it? *le sigh* I suppose we should count our selves lucky for the amount of Sam-ness that did make it in!

I have to say that I find Film Frodo and Film Sam every bit as sappy and touchy-feely as Book Frodo and Book Sam. Which I regard as a Good Thing. :)

I really like the way PJ portrayed the relationship between the two. I am also glad, frankly, that PJ toned down some of Sam's subservience, which tends to annoy me in the book. But it would have been immensely moving, in the Cirith Ungol scene, to see a broken, naked Frodo being cradled tenderly in Sam's arms. *SOBS LOUDLY*

And I'd have liked all of Frodo's 'all that I had' speech at the Havens, when he bequeaths all that he has to Sam. *SOBS LOUDLY* And yet I do find PJ's Havens really sublime: emotionally pitch-perfect.

Frodo's Smile at the Cracks of Doom
The smile: I agree. It's not Frodo. It's the Ring.

But as to whether Book Frodo would have 'smiled' like that, I am not a Cracks of Doom purist :) so I think this is open to interpretation. On one thing I am clear though: Frodo's failure to destroy the Ring was not a moral one, as JRRT says in the Collected Letters.

Keeping this Lij-centric ...
'Everything Is Illuminated' sounds promising.

Originally posted by ainon
I recall coming across an interview where he'd said that if at the end of the day the director still disagreed with him he'd drop the issue because the movie was the director's medium and he (the actor) was only there for the gig. I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it.
Well, as far as I know it...Russell Crowe prefers to work with strong directors with a clear vision of what they're doing and where they want to take the movie project they're working on.
Russell is willing to fight for a character and if he disagrees, he will say so...but in the end, it's the director's vision that counts.
Maybe he does not agree with everything but as long as the director has a clear goal, it's OK.
Elijah Wood seems to have a totally different personality but I think that he has a similar approach...meaning that the movie is the director's medium and the actor is only there for the gig.

Russell Crowe seems to express his dissatisfaction very clearly when he disagrees. It's not because Elijah does not get angry that he does not tend to try and have a conversation with the director to find out why he or she wants to do things that way and not this way, but I'm not sure about that. I don't really know how he deals with situations like that.
Maybe Elijah Wood is more diplomatic than Russell Crowe (which is not difficult, I might add) but I get the feeling that he's also rather strong willed.
When he was doing interviews for The War, didn't Elijah mention that he does write now and again and that he wants to direct later in his career and if I remember it correctly, the director of The War responded to this that he thinks Elijah has what it takes to be a good director not only because he has the talent but also because he's naturally "bossy".

It's going to be interesting to follow his progress as he takes on more movie projects.

Originally posted by Moondancer
Elijah is not the arguing type and he will give you a very good result anyway but a director who is willing to challenge him and push him will get excellent results. I'm just hoping that he will work with directors who are able to do just that: work together with Elijah Wood...directors who are smart enough to know how to tap into his talents and how to get the best results from him.
That's why I'm a little worried that he's working with a lot of first time directors. Elijah is experienced enough and talented enough to give good results but a magnificent director will get magnificent results out of him.


It must be very difficult for all involved to essentially go to a new job for 6 weeks, then leave and go to another job and so on. Think about your own offices -- for me, it usually takes a while to find a good rhythm and figure out working relationships etc., so it's hard to imagine both actors and directors being faced with new people, new personalities, new situations/environments all the time. All of this must really add to the chaos of trying to do their jobs well. So my thought is that a first-time director might be even more focused/demanding/exacting (fill in the blank) than someone that's been around awhile, because they have to prove themselves. Perhaps in that regard, they'd push Elijah even more than, say a Scorsese.

My own concern was a little different. It seemed for a while that the indies were being made by "out there" directors with actors no one had ever heard of, with mixed results. And I felt that if Lij went that route, he would not get a chance to work with "A list" actors who could really inspire and teach him (not to mention the fact that all his efforts would go "straight to video"...sigh). After all, it is also your fellow actors who drive your performance, not just the director. But suddenly, the A list has been gravitating to the indies (for the same reason that Elijah is) and he has just as much of a possibility of working with amazing co-stars in the indies as he does in the "majors". And gee, if he never gets to make a movie with Tom Cruise, I don't think anyone will exactly mind, probably least of all, Elijah. :) :) :)

Edited to add this -- just found this at Aint it Cool News -- ESOTSM is just opening in Australia:

The supporting cast is equally impressive, but special mention has to go Elijah Wood. Wood takes on what is a fairly thankless supporting role. For someone who could probably write his own ticket after LOTR, taking on the minor yet pivotal role of such a socially-awkward self-unaware manipulator... it's never going to happen, but it'd be great to see a Supporting Actor nod come next year.

ainon said:
But the relationship portrayed in 'Heavenly Creatures' is on another level altogether, I'd think.

Absolutely!

Pearl said:But it would have been immensely moving, in the Cirith Ungol scene, to see a broken, naked Frodo being cradled tenderly in Sam's arms. *SOBS LOUDLY*

Me too! And really, since Frodo had given up and expected to die in those moments that would have been more in character than having him struggle with his bonds?

And I agree with you about the "all I had" speach; wish that had been included.:(

Honey!

Originally posted by honeyelf
And really, since Frodo had given up and expected to die in those moments that would have been more in character than having him struggle with his bonds?
Hmmm... well, I think he actually expected a fate worse than death. I don't doubt that in both the book and the movie he'd be contemplating Boromir's "And you will beg for death before the end." If one of the orcs had "stuck" the "dunghill rat," he would have been in b-i-g trouble with headquarters! (I expect there was some "payment" exacted for allowing him to escape.)

I don't know about struggling with his bonds. It could be a natural reaction, I suppose, especially since we've got a barely-come-of-age Frodo in the movie. He might even have thought there was a chance--however miniscule--that he could retrieve the Ring. In the book, Frodo's not bound, but he's been beaten and questioned enough to be beyond trying to escape. (He had to do something in the movie to make some noise, after all, so we could hear the "lovely" comment about his squealing ;) . In the book, he's trying to answer Sam's singing.)

I expected to have a naked Frodo implied but not completely shown--"tasteful" camera use and all. I can think of at least one movie that has a few moments of implied nudity without being R-rated, so avoiding that rating couldn't have been the only reason for Frodo to keep some clothes on--maybe we'll get an explanation on the DVD. I would very much have liked to hear "They've taken everything!"

BTW, I asked my co-worker--who's seen all three movies but hasn't read the book--what he thought had happened when Frodo woke up and realized the Ring was gone. He did think the orcs had taken it. He thought Frodo wasn't quite distraught enough about it, but said we should "cut him some slack" as he'd still be pretty sluggish from all that spider venom.

And I agree with you about the "all I had" speach; wish that had been included.:(
I have mixed feelings on that. It's a beautiful speech, but I think it was a good decision to leave out any mention of Frodo making Sam his heir (to the point that Sam goes home to Number Three Bagshot Row instead of Bag End). IMHO it would have taken too much time to explain and I'd rather have it omitted than partially included.

The speech would have needed to be changed a bit, of course, since "Frodo-lad" is already on the scene (I love that Sam so clearly calls the baby "Frodo" even though we don't hear it spoken because of the voice-over :) .) And, speaking of the voice-over, isn't some of the "all I had" speech included in that? I'd have to check the book, which I don't have with me at work, to be sure.

If I could have picked one brief moment to include, I'd have had Frodo continue on a bit after "...but not for me." IMVHO, that's the clearest description of why he's leaving. Some people I've talked to understand the implications of "...but not for me," without any addition, but I don't know if most people do.

Originally posted by tgshaw
If I could have picked one brief moment to include, I'd have had Frodo continue on a bit after "...but not for me." IMVHO, that's the clearest description of why he's leaving. Some people I've talked to understand the implications of "...but not for me," without any addition, but I don't know if most people do. [/B]


As you can see from my sig, that particular bit is especially dear to me. So I was quite disappointed, to tell the truth, to find it so truncated in the movie. Gosh, I waited 3 years to hear that speech and was simply trembling with anticipation, only to get, "We tried to save the Shire, Sam, and it has been saved, but not for me." Phooey. But after the second viewing, I realized that some of it was used in that voiceover when Frodo is walking through Bag End with the mug of tea and says the part about "some hurts won't heal", etc. They're not the exact words, but it has the same spirit.

Wasn't "Trainspotting" set in Edinburgh? Terrific film, anyway.

Hmm - not sure I'd want to see Lij swim down a toilet though! ;)

Originally posted by Achila
But after the second viewing, I realized that some of it was used in that voiceover when Frodo is walking through Bag End with the mug of tea and says the part about "some hurts won't heal", etc. They're not the exact words, but it has the same spirit.
Yes, I very much like that part--especially in a Bag End that's empty and shadowy. I even like some of it that's not book canon :eek: !! [About things taking hold.]

In the later speech, I missed the part about, "It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger. Some one has to lose them, give them up, so that others might keep them." [Wonder how close I got that quote ;) ?] But I think that's mainly a personal thing with me and doesn't affect the understanding of the story all that much. It just feels like such a personal link to Tolkien, and his remembrance of the friends he lost in the War.

---------

Niph--Thanks for giving me one more reason not to watch Trainspotting :( (and I don't mean the part about it being set in Edinburgh ;) ).

Alright, because I am a good Elijah fan, I've posted something interesting I've found... which is a few pages of Liev Schreiber's script for "Everything is Illuminated." Judging from the book, this happens a little early on in the movie.

So, without furthur adieu.....


SPOILERS


INT. CAR - CONTINUOUS

JONATHON looks out his window then writes something in his cloth covered book. SDJJ sleeps beside him in the backseat.

ALEX is watching JONATHON write.

END MUSIC MONTAGE:

ALEX
Faither informs me that you are writing a book about this trip.

JONATHON looks up and smiles uncomfortably.

ALEX (cont'd)
You are a writer?

JONATHON
No.

JONATHON returns to his book.

ALEX
Then what are you doing?

JONATHON
Cataloguing.

ALEX
Cat-a-lo-ging?

JONATHON
It's different, it's not writing...It's...cataloguing.

ALEX
I see.

He doesn't. JONATHON becomes strangely defensive.

JONATHON
I don't know why they told you that. I'm not a writer...I mean, I write but, I'm more a..."collector" really.

ALEX
What do you collect?

JONATHON looks like a deer in the headlights.

JONATHON
...things. Family...things.

ALEX
It is a good career, yes?

JONATHON
No, it's not a job, it's just something I do.

ALEX
Why?

JONATHON
I don't know, why does anybody do anything? It's just...something to do.

ALEX
I understand.

Does he? ALEX looks at the road for a moment then turns back to JONATHON.

ALEX (cont'd)
I also enjoy writing, but I truly feel I was born to be an accountant.

JONATHON
Oh.

ALEX
Perhaps you were born to collect things?

Somehow from ALEX'S mouth it doesn't sound half bad.

ALEX (cont'd)
My friend Gregory informs me that there are many good schools for accounting in America. Is this true?

JONATHON
I guess. I don't really know. I could find out for you when I get back.

ALEX
Thank you. (Pause) How much currency would an accountant receive in America?

JONATHON
I'm not sure. A lot probably, if he or she is good.

ALEX
(Shocked)
She!?

JONATHON
Or he.

ALEX looks impressed.

ALEX
Are there Negro accountants?

JONATHON
Yes, there are African American accountants. But you don't want to use that word.

ALEX
And homosexual accountants?

JONATHON
There are homosexual everythings. There are homosexual garbage men.

ALEX
How much currency would a Negro homosexual accountant receive?

JONATHON
You shouldn't use that word.

ALEX
Which word?

JONATHON
The one before homosexual.

ALEX
What?

JONATHON
The n-word. Well it's not "the" n-word, but...

ALEX
Negro?

JONATHON
Yeah, that one.

ALEX
But I dig them all the way. They are premium people.

JONATHON
It's that word though. It's not a...You're not supposed to use that word.

ALEX
What is wrong with Negroes?

JONATHON
Forget it.

Pause. They both look out the window.

ALEX
Are you carnal very often?

JONATHON
What?

ALEX
With American girls, are you carnal often?

JONATHON
Are you?

ALEX
I inquired you. Are you?

JONATHON
Are you?

ALEX
I inquired headmost. Are you?

JONATHON
Not really.

ALEX
What do you intend by not really?

JONATHON
I'm not a priest, but I'm not John Holmes either.

ALEX
I know of this John Holmes! With the premium penis.

ALEX holds his hands up in the air to signify the length of John Holmes' penis. JONATHON laughs.

JONATHON
That's the one.

ALEX
In the Ukraine everyone has a penis like this.

JONATHON laughs again.

JONATHON
Even the women?

ALEX is unsure whether or not JONATHON is joking.

ALEX
You make a joke, yes?

JONATHON
Yes.

ALEX laughs.

ALEX
Do you like Ukranian women? They are first rate, yes?

JONATHON
I haven't seen many since I've been here.

ALEX
Do you have women like this in America?

JONATHON
There's at least one of everything in America.

ALEX nods.

ALEX
I have heard this. Do you have many motorcycles in America?

JONATHON
Of course.

ALEX
And fax machines?

JONATHON
Everywhere.

ALEX
Do most young people have impressive cars in America? Lotus Esprit VB Twin Turbos?

JONATHON
Not really. I don't.

ALEX
And if you are a good accountant, you could buy an impressive car?

JONATHON
Absolutely. You could probably buy most anything you want.

ALEX
What kind of wife would a good accountant have?

JONATHON
Who knows?

ALEX
Would she have surgical tits?

JONATHON
What?

ALEX cups his hands over his chest making the universal sign for "big boobs".

JONATHON (cont'd)
Oh...I don't know.

ALEX
Probably, although?

JONATHON
I guess?

ALEX
I dig this. I dig surgical tits.

JONATHON
You know there are also accountants, even, very good ones, who have ugly wives. That's just the way it works.

ALEX seems frustrated by this.

ALEX
If John Holmes was a first rate accountant, he could have any woman he would like for his wife, yes?

JONATHON
Probably.

ALEX
My penis is very big.

JONATHON
OK.

CUT TO: GRANDFATHER silently driving the car. He stares distractedly into the distance.

CUT TO:

EXT. FIELD, SOMEWHERE IN THE UKRAINE - AFTERNOON

The sun is lower in the sky, as the goats pick up their heads and watch the little car race by from right to left. It becomes apparent that they have been going in circles.

CUT TO: INT. CAR - TWILIGHT

The car slows to a stop. Through the windshield GRANDFATHER sees the tank graveyard.
SPOILERS

hobbityme,
thanks for for "Everything is Illuminated." Very funny! :D

One small question: what is the date of the story? It is now or somewhere in the past? For example, in 70-s or 80-s? I can explain why I ask this. Alex knows strangely few about the life in America. That was normal thing for the past (times of the Soviet Union and for the first years after it - in early 90), but not for the last 10 years, when there a lot of information about USA.
But... may be this Alex is from the small village somewhere in the countryside? Than this is believable even now.

And a small linguistic explanation of one funny moment.
Jonathon is in shock when Alex use the word "negro" - he thinks him to be very unpolite and rude. In English it's a rude term, isn't it? He told Alex that he has to say "African American"...

But the matter is that American polit correctness is not a popular thing in Russia (and in Ukraine, too), so in everyday conversation people never say "African American" (the majority of population even have never heard this term!), only "negro" or "black". But in Russian language the term "negro" ("negr") and all its derivatives have absolutely neutral connotation - just an identification of this race. While the other common term - "black" - has a negative connotation. So poor Alext IS polite in this case :) - he uses the most correct word and can't understand "what's wrong with negrous?" - why Jonathon is in shock. :D

godmorning to you all!!:)

i start reading everything is iluminated yesterday
and i most say this look very promising i just couldent
stop reading i dont know if it is becuse i see Elijah infront
of me as Jonathan or what it is but i think the book is very
good.:)

the first chapters was hilourios funny,maybe it was the translation
of Alex broken english but i thought it was very funny.

I think that this roll for Elijah will be very intresting to see.

of the record anything new from the Yank?

Originally posted by Rikka
hobbityme,
thanks for for "Everything is Illuminated." Very funny! :D

One small question: what is the date of the story? It is now or somewhere in the past? For example, in 70-s or 80-s? I can explain why I ask this. Alex knows strangely few about the life in America. That was normal thing for the past (times of the Soviet Union and for the first years after it - in early 90), but not for the last 10 years, when there a lot of information about USA.
But... may be this Alex is from the small village somewhere in the countryside? Than this is believable even now.


Well, I would say that the "modern" or "present-day" part of the story takes place sometime around 1999/2000. I say this because Jonathon Safran Foer, the author, actually made this trip then, and judging that he's 25 at the moment and Jonathan in the book is supposed to be around 20, we're back roughly four or five years. It's interesting how uninformed Alex seems to be about the States. Although I have no real way of knowing as I'm nowhere near Russia or the Ukraine, it seemed to me that the internet would have been a major venue to learn about America. (But perhaps that's just ignorant thinking in my part). But Alex doesn't seem to reside in a large city although he claims to frequent them. I hope this answers your question somewhat.



But the matter is that American polit correctness is not a popular thing in Russia (and in Ukraine, too), so in everyday conversation people never say "African American" (the majority of population even never heard this term!), only "negro" or "black"! But in Russian language the term "negro" ("negr") has absolutely neutral connotation - just an identification of this race. While the other common term - "black" - has a negative connotation. So poor Alext IS polite in this case :) - he uses the most correct word and can't understand - "what's wrong with negrous?" - why Jonathon is in shock. :D

:) Cultural relativity makes for some great humour in this novel.

Wood, glad you're liking Everything is Illuminated. And I'm with you about the seemingly lack of The Yank updates.

Pearl said:

I am also glad, frankly, that PJ toned down some of Sam's subservience, which tends to annoy me in the book.

well, you've given me something to think about, and no mistake! ;)

Yes, Sam was subservient in the book, and that's a thing that we we are very uncomfortable with in our day of the INDIVIDUAL being all, and SELF-EXPRESSION being the ultimate goal of many an endeavor.

But think about Frodo's task. He was SUBSERVIENT, too. To Elves and Wizards. What could possibly be more subservient than giving up YOURSELF? Than taking on a task that you know, will in the end require your very life?

If you were Frodo's travel companion, in the face of that kind of subservience, what would be too much to give?

I think Sam's subservience is what makes him great! Here was Frodo literally giving his all, and Sam was the only one there to support him. But all he had to do that was all three feet, six inches of his hobbit self. Is it uncomfortable to us when Sam offers his lap as Frodo's pillow? Good, because I don't think it was very comfortable for Sam either!

So when I asked, maybe inappropriatley, why in this day and age we are OK with seeing a carnal relationship (of any sort) depicted on screen, but not comfortable with seeing an equally intense, but wholly different spiritual relationship honestly depicted I was admittedly comparing apples and oranges.

But I do still think it's interesting what squicks us. My husband wonders the same thing, so I know I'm not the only one.

still wondering,

Honey!

Originally posted by hobbityme
It's interesting how uninformed Alex seems to be about the States (...) But Alex doesn't seem to reside in a large city although he claims to frequent them.
hobbityme , thank you for explanation about the time the "Illuminated" story takes part.
It seems strange to me, too, how uninformed this Alex is about the US, especially if he's frequent in big cities! This is not true about present days (at least for Russia).

Originally posted by hobbityme
it seemed to me that the internet would have been a major venue to learn about America.
hobbityme, dear,
there is NO any internet connection in majority of small provincial towns and villages of Russia. Here Internet is mostly a privilege of the cities. Only in the last 2-3 years the situation with Internet access in Russian province became better. I think that at Ukraine it is even worse - the economic situation there is much more severe than in my country - ukrainians live poorer than people in Russia now.

But this spoiler even rose my fears about the movie itself. Well, Jonathon may be an interesting role for EW, but I don't believe that American actor would be able play Alex correctly - they need a ukrainian actor on this role, who could adequately express all these differences in mentality and culture. Otherwise, this will be a caricature again, for sure. :(

P.S. May be this is also about culture difference, but Sam's "subservience" in the book never made me uncomfortable. It seems normal for his social status. He's from low class and he is a servant of Mr.Baggins...

Originally posted by honeyelf
Yes, Sam was subservient in the book, and that's a thing that we we are very uncomfortable with in our day of the INDIVIDUAL being all, and SELF-EXPRESSION being the ultimate goal of many an endeavor.

If you were Frodo's travel companion, in the face of that kind of subservience, what would be too much to give?

I think I grasp the principles of self-sacrifice in LOTR pretty well, honey. :)
I don't have a problem with the nature of Sam's devotion to Frodo or with the spiritual nature of their relationship. And if I was Frodo's travel companion I'd happily lay my life down for the guy!

I have stylistic problems with JRRT's portrayal of Sam in the early part of the book (not later on, when his relationship with Frodo has deepened). That's all. I don't have a problem with PJ making Frodo and Sam slightly more 'equal' in the film. I get annoyed with Film Sam's preachiness in TTT, but that's for another thread.

Apologies for having a book discussion in the thread.

Witty script from 'Illuminated'. :)

i understand your woried rikka
but i am sure they will find a good actor even
amerikan who could play alex(ihope)

And pearl i agree with you totally
I would go to the end of world and die for mr frodo too!!

i just rember something when i listen to the sountrack.
the song return of the king just in the beginning when frodo
wakes up and the hole fellowship turns up and last Sam
comes in, the eyes of Sam and Frodo you just can see the
friendship and what they have been going through
together.it brought me to tears when i see the movie and listen to the music.i dont think there was any need to show to much
from the book earlier in the film about there relationship,you can feel and see it anyway throu the hole movie just to look at there
eyes and faces when they are looking at egouther(i cant spell
that word hope you know what i mean)I dont think it hade
worked out that well if Elijah and Sean hadent been such
good friends it really image the fellowship.almost like brothers.

i rumbeling again hope you understands what i try to say!!

:)

I didn't mind Sam's subservience in the book, certainly because the nature of their relationship changes as Frodo's burden becomes more and more clear.
In the beginning, there is more a distance between master and gardner but it tends to disappear more towards the end.
Although, I am glad with the different take on Sam and Frodo's relationship in the film.

***Warning...this gets a bit personal...skip it if it annoys you...:) ***

I can only compare it with my own experience when my mother was deadly ill.My family is not really the 'lots of hugs and kisses' type family. I adored my mother but there was still the generation gap and other typical daughter-mother stuff.
When it became clear that her end was near...you could see her burden, although she never complained. You could feel her fear, her pain, her suffering (mental and physical)...and you could do nothing to lessen her pain.
So, the only thing I could do was be there for her. So, I did what I never did before: I started to hug her a lot, tell her how special she was to me,...
I would just sit beside her when she was in her hospital bed with her hand in mine when she could no longer speak. She was so weak in the last bit of her life, but when I held her hand in mine, her grasp was strong. She held on to it. How often I wanted to take over her pain for her. It's terrible having to watch the pain and feel helpless.
You could do so little for her, but this you could do....be there for her.

That's why I love Sam and Frodo's relationship. That's why I have no problem reading about Sam offering his lap to Frodo. When you see somebody who is suffering inside, physical contact is so important. When something is eating them up inside, physical contact with a loved one seems to help to give the pain and fear a place and not let it overpower you.
I guess that a lot of people who adore Tolkien's story tend to relate it to their own life.
Especially, when you see how Elijah Wood portrays the suffering, the burden of the ring of Frodo (and it's even more amazing when you think of Elijah's age) and how Sean's Sam tries desperatly to do the little he can to help him.

think Sam's subservience is what makes him great! Here was Frodo literally giving his all, and Sam was the only one there to support him. But all he had to do that was all three feet, six inches of his hobbit self. Is it uncomfortable to us when Sam offers his lap as Frodo's pillow?
Of course, I can't speak for everybody and this is just my view but I certainly never felt uncomfortable with that.
...I love Sam and Frodo's relationship...If only, in real life, everybody who feels like they're in a desperate situation like Frodo was, has a Sam.

So when I asked, maybe inappropriatley, why in this day and age we are OK with seeing a carnal relationship (of any sort) depicted on screen, but not comfortable with seeing an equally intense, but wholly different spiritual relationship honestly depicted I was admittedly comparing apples and oranges.
Good question!
I think that it's OK to see a relationship like that between women on tv or in the movie theater but it still seems difficult for a lot of people when they see it between men.


Hobbityme...thanks for that bit of script! I enjoyed that.
Achila...thanks for that brilliant Australian review of ESOTSM!

i am sorry about your mother moondancer!!

i can see what you mean.
when you see one very cloes to you friend or family
who is ill or have other problems you want to take care
of them and do anything to help them to eas ther pain
and burden.

thats why Sam sticks to frodo all the way to the very end and
never leaves his side even when frodo sent him home(in
the movie)he returns to him. thats true friendship and real
love (betwen friends).And ofcurce i realy dont think that
would have been so obvious if the actors havent been
so good,i mean it is one thing to read about it,but to show it on the screen its anotherthing.
And i dont see other actor then ELIJAH to have done it the way it
was played and written.and with his young age what will it become of him
in the future?i just wondering?

i just love him i cant help it i just do, realy love him!!:D :D

my goodness how many posts already its only midday
what will you think about me a nutcase,who have nothing better to do?well something like that tday anyway i am dead hard fan
to the guy i cant help it!!:cool: :cool: :cool:

Originally posted by Moondancer
I didn't mind Sam's subservience in the book, certainly because the nature of their relationship changes as Frodo's burden becomes more and more clear.
IMVHO, the main purpose of Sam's subservience in the book is to change. If he'd started out less subservient, the change in the relationship between Sam and Frodo wouldn't be as dramatic as it is, at least for us Americans (hopeful explanation below).

A history professor (who could be wrong--he's not British, just studies recent Brit history a lot) told me that at the time LotR was written, Frodo making Sam his heir would have been considered highly unusual in Britain (simply because he was a servant) and would have been quite a strong statement by Tolkien. OTOH, in America it wouldn't have raised any eyebrows (we probably would have thought it more strange if Frodo hadn't made Sam his heir, under the circumstances), but I think we still got the point. Guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of us probably wouldn't have gotten the point if the change hadn't been so dramatic. We don't "get" classes as part of someone's identity (just based on how much money someone makes, therefore very changeable), so just making Sam a "servant" wouldn't mean anything to the majority of Americans. But starting Sam out as someone who basically worships Frodo and considers himself as "less"--that we get, because it's a relationship thing rather than a class thing. So if nothing else, IMVHO the way Sam's portrayed at the beginning of LotR can be considered remedial education for ignorant Americans. (Hey, we didn't even have public TV until the late 1960's; before that we didn't know nuthin' 'bout them English folks :D !)

Anyway, I'll join with all who've said they're glad the relationship wasn't portrayed that way in the movies, simply because the movies didn't have the time to show that gradual attitide change. It would take a movie all in itself to do justice to the dynamics in that one relationship. Also, a lot of the change in both Sam and Frodo is internal--in the book we can be privvy to little moments of realization, but that would have been harder to show externally--even for Elijah (I said "harder," not impossible ;) ). I think one of the most ingenious non-Tolkien lines in the movies is Sam's "His gardener," in TTT: it defines an understandable relationship in just about any culture--although it wouldn't be the same relationship in each culture (if that makes any sense :confused: ).

And I think I may have just written myself into an explanation of one of my purist quibbles (I'm okay with book/movie differences, as long as I can see a reason for them), which is that Sam, as a Harfoot among Fallohides, should have been not only the stockiest of the four hobbits, but also the shortest (probably why he carries Frodo on his back in the book, instead of by the safer method used in the movie). I'm used to picturing Sam that way, but maybe some who haven't read the book would have found the relationship more difficult to understand if Sam had been smaller--in the movie, it's understandable that he takes on some of the more physical responsibilities simply because he's bigger. (But he still shouldn't be blond :rolleyes: ;) !)


I guess that a lot of people who adore Tolkien's story tend to relate it to their own life.
Absolutely--and the way I understand what Tolkien said about it, that's exactly what he wanted people to be able to do. I think he'd be very happy to know how many people his writing has helped with so many difficult, even heartbreaking, circumstances.

--------------------------

How to tell if you're an Elijah Wood geek, #2

(#1 is from Easter: If seeing someone in a pink bunny suit makes you think of Die Hard :p .)

#2. If the following quote from Leelee Sobieski brings some specific questions to your mind (she's talking about making Dangerous Liaisons with [gay] actor Rupert Everett):
It was the first time I kissed someone knowing for sure that they weren't attracted to me. ;)

---------------------------

I found something nice in my mailbox when I got home last night: the two LotR issues of Starburst I'd ordered. The pictures are :eek: (in a good way)! Even things we've seen on screen look incredible. Enough to make me think about ordering some of the LotR back issues (think about--will have to consider finances). I haven't had time to read many of the interviews. Pretty sure that most of what Elijah said has already been posted, but I'll look his interview over again to see if there are any tidbits to add. Andrew Lesnie's interview has some comments I'll post when I get home from work tonight--on PJ's relationship with the actors. Although Elijah's not mentioned by name (none of the actors are--Lesnie's very diplomatic ;) ), some of it fits in with our discussion on Elijah being a "director's actor."

Originally posted by tgshaw
A history professor (who could be wrong--he's not British, just studies recent Brit history a lot) told me that at the time LotR was written, Frodo making Sam his heir would have been considered highly unusual in Britain (simply because he was a servant) and would have been quite a strong statement by Tolkien. OTOH, in America it wouldn't have raised any eyebrows (we probably would have thought it more strange if Frodo hadn't made Sam his heir, under the circumstances), but I think we still got the point. Guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of us probably wouldn't have gotten the point if the change hadn't been so dramatic. We don't "get" classes as part of someone's identity (just based on how much money someone makes, therefore very changeable), so just making Sam a "servant" wouldn't mean anything to the majority of Americans. But starting Sam out as someone who basically worships Frodo and considers himself as "less"--that we get, because it's a relationship thing rather than a class thing. So if nothing else, IMVHO the way Sam's portrayed at the beginning of LotR can be considered remedial education for ignorant Americans. (Hey, we didn't even have public TV until the late 1960's; before that we didn't know nuthin' 'bout them English folks :D !)

Illuminating post as always, tg.

LOTR was published in the mid-1950s. Post-war Britain had undergone huge social changes. The class system was still very strong but it WAS being challenged, and things WERE changing. I’m not a social historian but I do know that the 1950s ushered in the era of the Angry Young Men who challenged the Establishment including the church and the monarchy. The big social revolution came in the 60s, but the seeds were sown in the 50s.

As for Frodo and Sam, they belong to a much earlier era than 1950s Britain! :D Although I regard them as more Victorian than medieval. But whether you regard F & S as Victorian, Edwardian or Middle Ages (it doesn’t really matter, although the Shire is most definitely pre-Industrial Revolution :p) it would still be highly unusual, to say the least, for a young aristocrat to bequeath his home and his inheritance to his live-in servant. The readers of the 1950s would have got the point. :)

I have a feeling we might be asked to take this discussion to Books ... :o

okej we better do so then!!
or why becuse it also have some topic to elijah or?
i mean in my opinion it is becuse of him frodo is so well
discussed over and over again!:(
and he is the one who makes frodo so living
but i know what you mean!!
i will stop here and now!!
:k :k :k

TG said:IMVHO, the main purpose of Sam's subservience in the book is to change. If he'd started out less subservient, the change in the relationship between Sam and Frodo wouldn't be as dramatic as it is, at least for us Americans

I absolutely agree!

Pearl [[[[Pearl]]]] I'm sorry for gettin' preachy. I was mostly talking to myself anyhow I suppose. I wasn't quite sure what to make of very early book Sam myself.

OK. I'll shut up about book fro and sam now.

TG you've got me very eager to get my own copy of Starburst in the mail!

Sooooo......how 'bout them "Hooligans?" :D Looking at the pics, himself has a bit of color in his face I'd say, you know a bit more tan. He's looking older, too and ever more beautiful for it. The older he gets the more strongly masculine his face. Wow!

honey!

(((Honeyelf))) :)

That copy of 'Starburst' is well worth getting.

And yes, Lij is becoming more beautiful as he gets older.

Not sure I really want to see a film about football hooliganism though. The yob culture in Britain is too depressing. :(

I like how Lij chooses riskier projects though. :cool:

i know!! i have notis it to honey,

wonder what he will loks like when he reag
30!!:eek: :eek:

it probebli be a yoy of a life time to look at him!!
:k :eek: ;) :rolleyes:

but it is already!!!!!

i found this one hope you all like it!!

To The Havens

a tender and touching farewell to a dear friend




The weight of all that I bear
Lies heavy in my heart
It has torn my soul to pieces
Broken life in whole apart
Simple words they can not say
What it is I truly feel
I have been hurt all too deeply
The wound will never fully heal

You yourself you can not be
Forever torn in two
You have to be one and whole
For this is something I must do
Our friendship will forever last
Yet often it must be so
To leave all those we love behind
And on a different road to go

It is time for me to sail away
Across this endless sea of despair
To have my moments all alone
And someday find my healing there
Yet when the hour finally comes
When you sail this way my friend
My days will be whole once more
When you are by my side again


i just love this one ( SORRY OF TOPIC AGAIN
COULDENT HELP IT)

Wood, you aren’t leaving, are you?!? :confused:


Thanks for the EiI script, hobbity me! it sounds awfully cool. I love how EW picks the interesting scripts. And this stood out:

JONATHON looks like a deer in the headlights.

Now we know why they picked Elijah!







:D ;)

Originally posted by Pearl
I have a feeling we might be asked to take this discussion to Books ... :o [/B]

Getting close. :D Nice catch, Pearl. :k

The Faculty has always been given a fair bit of latitude to range in and out of discussions about the book when discussing Elijah's role as Frodo, and it is only when the discussion begins to dominate the thread, or completely moves away from Elijah, that there is a potential issue. As long as the digressions are short, I'm not going to step in. But there are certainly many things in the book which can be discussed, and specific places to do so - if anyone is interested in getting into more in-depth book discussions, do check out the The Green Dragon (http://www.khazaddum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=8) in The Book Shop forum. There are some interesting threads there that have fallen off the page because no one has posted there in a while, and you can always start a new thread for a particular topic you want to discuss.

(((wood))) I merged your two posts. To avoid double posting, use the edit button at the bottom of your first post to add anything else you want to say. :k

(((((Faculty)))

NO.RANDOM I AM NOT LEAVING!!!
IJUST COULDENT RESIST IT!!
THAT POEM IS JUST SO BEUTIFUL
AND EXPLAINS SO MUCH SPECILY WHAY
FRODO IS LEVING!!:k :k

Originally posted by wood
NO.RANDOM I AM NOT LEAVING!!!
IJUST COULDENT RESIST IT!!
THAT POEM IS JUST SO BEUTIFUL
AND EXPLAINS SO MUCH SPECILY WHAY
FRODO IS LEVING!!:k :k

That's what I figured, wood :) , and y'know what? That poem would fit beautifully in the Heart, Mind and Soul of Frodo (http://www.khazaddum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=216838#post216838) thread that Hobmom started in the Green Dragon ;) . All Frodo discussion--especially but not necessarily sad--is totally "on topic" there. I pulled it out of the void a week or so ago because I had something to add, but it doesn't seem that anyone has noticed. The poor ol' Green Dragon (http://www.khazaddum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=8) needs some new customers. It gets lonely over there :( . Tell the drop-down menu at the bottom that you want to see the threads "from the beginning" to find out what threads are available. (And Narya's last entry in the Quote Game (http://www.khazaddum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=219579#post219579) is still waiting to be solved ;) .)

--------------------------------

Okay, I'm home from work and here's the part of Andrew Lesnie's interview that talks about how PJ worked with the actors. It's kind of fun to reflect on whom he might be thinking of regarding some of the statements ;) . So much of the cinematography in the LotR movies is sweeping, majestic, visually amazing, etc., etc., that it was nice to see that Lesnie seems to consider the actors' performances the most important thing.

Starburst interviewer comments are in bold. And, yes, there are pages and pages of interesting stuff on the camera work in different scenes--the following material is at the very end of the interview. IMHO it just adds some background to our recent "director's actor" discussion:
In terms of the performances, Christopher Lee was talking about how Peter wasn't going to let a scene go until it was right for him as the director, even though, as an actor, Christopher Lee often felt that the scene had already been done to the best of his ability. The result was doing a lot of takes for some scenes.

I don't think Peter necessarily always did a lot of takes on a given scene, but he would want the performances to be at a certain level, so he would push each actor until he reached that plateau. Of course, every actor is an individual who has a different method, so Peter would use different methods of getting them to where he wanted their performance to be. It was an ongoing process, where they were both challenging each other about all sorts of things, but Peter would have a very strong idea of where the performance plateau should be, and he would push the actor to get there. Once they were in that area, he would tend to do a few more takes. But what I noticed was that once the actors hit a peak and started to come down the other side, Peter would quickly pull the plug and move on. Peter is always pushing himself, to see how far he can go, and he encourages that with everybody.

Of course, some actors peak very early, after one or two takes.

Yes, some actors peak early, so we'd gear up for that. While some actors, like a lot of director-actor relationships, needed to be massaged into the ballpark. So different actors needed different things, and Peter was very responsive to the needs of each member of the cast, which is something I became more aware of as the shoot went on. You may realize that one person is on the mark very quickly, while another person needs some help and guidance to reach a certain level.

When Jack Nicholson was making The Shining for Stanley Kubrick, he was doing over 100 takes on some scenes and he said to Kubrick, 'This is all very well, but I generally peak around the 50th take'. What I don't understand is how Kubrick could watch 100 takes and evaluate the best.

Yes, I know. But when I'm watching each take through the viewfinder, I know there are a lot of considerations: the framing and lighting, the booms, the art direction and everything else you're supposed to be watching for. But what I try to do is just watch the performance. When I'm on the viewfinder, I just imagine I'm sitting in the stalls, watching the movie. So when you start doing one take after another, you start studying all the nuances of the actor's performance. Then you begin evaluating and say, 'That performance was better than the previous take'. And then Peter will go talk with the actor and they'll do another one, and you weigh it against the previous one, and sometimes you can see where Peter is going and what he's trying to get to. I'd try to get an understanding of Peter's relationship with the actor, and where they were trying to get the performance to. It's probably why a lot of directors use video monitors, so they can distance themselves from the fact that it is a live performance on the set. The director and actor have to modulate the performance and make allowances for the camera. But when you're right up there on the camera and the actors are no more than six feet away, and they're putting in a really terrific performance, it's like you're sitting in a small theatre in the West End, with some of the best actors in the world. Which for me, is one of the processes I enjoy most about being on the set. Of course, that's not something an audience is going to get the benefit of, because it's no longer a live performance when they see it, but rather a recorded performance. But that's why I think the actor-director relationship is by far the most interesting process on the set.

--------
Not to the length limit yet, so here's part of Sean A's interview that involves Elijah. Some/all of it may have been posted before:
Frodo and Sam go through an intense emotional journey during the course of the three films. Were the emotional scenes spread out in the shooting schedule?

You're only seeing a hundredth of the emotion that we did! We filmed so many more crying scenes than ended up in the movie than you got to see. It was like a tidal wave kind of emotion. It was spread out, but the gaps were filled up with other things. I think there were a few moments where there was down time.

Frodo is the driving force in the first film, while the second had to do with Gollum and that conflict. But the third is really about Sam, isn't it?

Sam becomes important to the spine of the story at the end of the books, and the climax of what is the third film, because at a certain point the ring can't go forward anymore without Sam. So to that extent I knew there was going to come a time, while shooting and while viewing the movies, where everyone's attention would be directed towards Sam. So you just want to be equal to the moment.

The emotional dynamic changes too.

I think I was looking forward to that all the time, and was looking forward to the fact that, although we did it five years ago, now people are finally going to be able to see what it was that we did. But we're experiencing it three years apart, and it's new for the audience. We were filming one of those scenes, the scene on the ledge of Cirith Ungol, where Frodo sends Sam away, we filmed my close-ups of that in November of '99, and then we filmed Elijah's close-ups, the reverses of those, in August of 2000.

Why was there so long in between?

It was a quirk of production logistics. They'd found a whole village they'd built on this river had got flooded because of a huge typhoon, and so there was a whole crew who needed to shoot something! So they got some polystyrene rocks shipped down to the South Island, and talked the guy at the hotel into letting us use the squash court for a stage, and we went in there and started filming. We were in the middle of shooting the beginning of the first film, and then one day it was like, 'Oh, tomorrow you're going to be doing one of the climaxes of the third film'. Elijah and I were like, 'I'm not ready. Are you ready?' 'No, I'm not ready. Are you ready?' 'No!' 'How are we going to do it?' 'I don't know, what are you going to do?' 'Maybe we're not ready to do it. We'll tell Pete we have to do something else!'

Then we went through the make-up process and somehow we were there, we just did it. Then we did it again. And we did it again, and again and again and again. And then the sun came out, and they said 'Oh, we're going outside'. When it was time to leave Queenstown and go back to the North Island to do Hobbiton, or something like that, they weren't scheduled to come back down until six months later. And sure enough, six months later we turn up and Peter has a clamshell and he says 'These are the shots we did, and now we're going to do the reverse'. You think, 'But now I really know the character! Can we do my close-ups again?'

You and Elijah go through an incredible bonding through the films--in real life did you really become great friends?

There's a number of anecdotes -- when I was in New York, he let me stay in his apartment. When he was in the hospital, I called and checked on him. On September 11th, after I called my immediate family, I wanted to find out what happened with him, and he was on a plane that had left just before the four planes out of the same airport, and his plane got diverted to Tennessee. So I talked with him for a long time from there. It's funny because, it's not like we need to see each other all the time, he has his own life and I have my wife and kids and everything else. But there's this sense that we're family and we think about each other and we check in on each other and we hope each other is doing well, and we see each other every 10 minutes doing Lord of the Rings stuff anyway. I think we'll permanently be friends -- we shot for half a decade together.

i read about the sin city in imdb database
oh my good what a cast list but i wonder
when is he going to make it i mean he is filming now in london
and going to prag in june were is the time??

some of the actors who been cast

jonny deep!!
bruce willis
josh hasnett

and many more but i cant spell ther names
steve bruchini?

what a film its gone be or it is going to be a tv serie?

love to you all and have a great day, of to work now
talk to you later!!!:k :k

I'm in just for a moment (too busy in RL :() - to post a pic from The Hooligans filming, I didn't see before... One more from that brutal wall scene.... For sure, the life in London wasn't easy for the American boy! :)
By the way, who knows what is the name of EW's character in The Hooligans?

There are new The Yank/Hooligans pictures. Not directly "behind the scenes" shots but pictures of Elijah playing football.
You'll probably see them pop up all over the place but at the moment, you can see them in the pictures section of the forum of the Always&Forever site.
:)

One more TH pic that I didn't see yet...

Hi, everyone! Sorry, I've been a bit bludgeoned by RL lately, but I'm trying to catch up with this thread.

I've been loving all the discussions of how LOTR has been translated, or viewed around the world. And especially cultural differences - I adore hearing about those!

Tg, thank you for the Andrew Lesnie interview. Very interesting, and I must say I'm jealous! Perhaps I ought to go to film school? ;) Maybe someday people will go through the vaults, like they did with the Beatles material, and some of these alternate takes will see the light of day.

I just got my copy of Starburst magazine too--and I'm amazed I did as the paper shipping envelope had torn open at both ends!:eek:

I think a lot of the interview information in here made its way on to the Internet a long time ago, but it looks to be full of nice Frodo pictures, anyway.

This is for wood particularly. ;) Blue blue eyes.

There's some squinching going on there. :D

Yeppers - almost a Viggo forehead squinch! :eek: :D

Thanks for those quotes, tg. I *want* that Starburst. But I just hit Barnes and Noble last week, and I should be good. *sigh* :(

But when you're right up there on the camera and the actors are no more than six feet away, and they're putting in a really terrific performance, it's like you're sitting in a small theatre in the West End, with some of the best actors in the world. Which for me, is one of the processes I enjoy most about being on the set.

Have I mentioned lately how much I adore Andrew Lesnie? :D

Sheryl

Thank you for the birthday wishes everybody! :)

There is such a wealth of information in both the Lesnie and the Astin interview that I can't hope to post about it all. But I am happy to see that PJ modulates his directing to fit the particular actor he's working with. It's somthing I had suspected -- there is no other way he would have gotten such a performance out of everybody -- so I'm glad to see it confirmed.

The part about using video monitors is infinitely interesting. I was thinking about it just the other day, how it must be difficult to figure out how much of the acting will show up on the screen. I guess it's like taking pictures: you think the lighting is fine when you take the pic but the picture comes out dark. There must be some similar shift in percpetion between in-person acting and what shows up on the video monitor, so if your "camera-perception" isn't good, you need the monitor. And even then, what looks good on site might look awful later on in the dailies, so they need to have a lot of takes just to make sure one of them is just right.

This could explain why some actors tend to overact so badly. They can't tell if their acting will show up on the monitor so they overact to make sure the emotion shows, which leads them to overcompensate. Luckily, both Elijah and PJ seem to have spot-on camera-perception talent.

And yes, the famous squash court scene. The only probelm with it is that it creates a continuity error: Sam's face is somewhat rounder and puffier on the squash-court close-ups than it was in the other Mordor scenes, because the scenes were filmed when Sam was a different weight.

Gosh. You leave for a couple of days and what springs up in this thread? A whole new orchard of fresh fruits. If you see what I mean! :)

Tg, I'll second the thanks for the Lesnie and Astin interviews. Very, very interesting. Makes you speculate like mad on which actors AL meant, doesn't it?
Also, there's the anecdote about Elijah on 9/11 again.

from ainon:
.... (a very talented young boy named Max Pirkis) who had never done any acting before, but was a natural in front of the camera and who wasn't really interested in analysing how he was capable of the performance he was giving. Sound familiar?

Yes, and I had exactly that thought while watching M&C. Except that EW went through that stage when he was 8 rather than 13!

And hobbityme, thanks so much for that "Illuminated" script extract! :D The film looks like being as hilarious as the book (which I too am now reading).
On Alex's ignorance of the US and the date question: as far as I can tell without having read to the end, Alex's letters seem to suggest Jonathan's trip to the Ukraine was over before mid-1997. That would make Alex's ignorance and his questions about whether there were fax machines (not computers or cellphones!) in America far more plausible. Email was not all that common even in western Europe then, let alone the Ukraine. The Internet even less so. Fax was still a wonderful new toy in many places.

from rikka:
I don't believe that American actor would be able play Alex correctly - they need a ukrainian actor on this role, who could adequately express all these differences in mentality and culture. Otherwise, this will be a caricature again, for sure.

Can't help agreeing, Rikka. A good Ukrainian or, failing that, Russian actor - in fact, someone from any Slavonic country - might have been ideal for that role and would have a better chance of getting the accent right, not to mention understanding the cultural nuances.
But then JSF himself saw it all from an American viewpoint. I already think the guy's a genius and I've only got to page 36. I'm so thrilled that Elijah has taken on this role! But I do wonder about some of the linguistic gags, such as the play on the verb "to marry" in the first chapter:

"Anna", he would say. "I am going to marry that one with the pink hat." And she would say, "To whom are you going to marry her?" And he would say, "To me." ..... and she would say to him, "But you are no priest."

Now I may be totally wrong, but English is the only language I can think of in which that joke would work, and I'd be very surprised if it works in Ukrainian (in most European languages, marrying as a bridegroom and marrying as a priest are two different verbs or verb forms). Rikka, does it work in Russian?
The same applies to quite a lot of the language Alex uses - it's hilarious, but a bit improbable coming from a Ukrainian - even one with an English thesaurus :D . But what the heck - having Alex tell the story is a brilliant idea, and it's very very funny. Can't wait to see this film!

So what's with all these Jewish roles for Elijah? It surely can't be his facial features, so it just has to be his name that pulls him in that direction :) Unless he was Jewish in one of the past lives his fellow actors keep alluding to? :)

Edit: forgot to quote Pearl's
And yes, Lij is becoming more beautiful as he gets older.

What, more beautiful? You mean he can be improved on? Not sure I'd be able to survive that! ;)

So what's with all these Jewish roles for Elijah? It surely can't be his facial features, so it just has to be his name that pulls him in that direction :) Unless he was Jewish in one of the past lives his fellow actors keep alluding to? :)

ALL these Jewish roles? (Besides Illuminated) Avalon and...?

Edit: forgot to quote Pearl's
And yes, Lij is becoming more beautiful as he gets older.

What, more beautiful? You mean he can be improved on? Not sure I'd be able to survive that! ;)

I know I wouldn't! :)

He was a concentration camp inmate in "The Witness," as well.

The great thing about EW's face is that he can look just about any European nationality. Most typical Hollywood actors have faces you can automatically say, "Oh, he's a WASP/Italian/Irish/Nordic." I think that EW's features are arresting enough without being too ethnically restrictive.

thanks rikka for the pic,i just love it!!:k :k

and i am not sure if i will survive any more beuty from
that man it is hard as it is!!:D :D (see but not tough )

i mean beuty, sexy,maskulin what more can you ask fore?:D :D

oh my say such things a this time of day its not a good saign
is it?:( on the other hand it can be a very very good thing
to start the day one!!!:D :D

love you all!! have a nice day!!

Originally posted by serena
On Alex's ignorance of the US and the date question: as far as I can tell without having read to the end, Alex's letters seem to suggest Jonathan's trip to the Ukraine was over before mid-1997. That would make Alex's ignorance and his questions about whether there were fax machines (not computers or cellphones!) in America far more plausible.
Mmmm... I'm not sure, serena. For me it's not quite believable. When I worked in a very small Moscow firm in 1994-95 we had a fax machine in office and it wasn't exotic thing there at all...

Originally posted by serena
But I do wonder about some of the linguistic gags, such as the play on the verb "to marry" in the first chapter. (...) Now I may be totally wrong, but English is the only language I can think of in which that joke would work, and I'd be very surprised if it works in Ukrainian (in most European languages, marrying as a bridegroom and marrying as a priest are two different verbs or verb forms). Rikka, does it work in Russian?
No, serena, this doesn't work. In Russian there are different verbs for it. Or, at least different grammatical forms of one verb. This makes such misunderstaning impossible.

Originally posted by serena

So what's with all these Jewish roles for Elijah? It surely can't be his facial features, so it just has to be his name that pulls him in that direction :)
For me the shape of his eyes seems very "Mediterranean"... May be he has some drops of Jewish blood in him? Why not? America is the place where all nations are mixed...

Achila,
EW also took part in some educational Internet project about the tragedy of Jews during the WW2 - together with Natalie Portman and some other American actors who have some Jewish heritage.

wood,
I'm glad that you like the pic. :k Here is one more. A pre-shooting pic for Y/H. But here EW is "in role", so while he's still very beautiful, he looks sinister at the same time. :)

There are some new pictures of Elijah from The Yank, to everyone who's got some minor withrawal from that... it's at the you-know-what site that can't be linked here. One of them might be disturbing, depending on your level of tolerance for fight scenes so be warned! Other than that, I'm going to proclaim once again how much I am anticipating Elijah's performance here.

And just to add a little tidbit found on TedC's column (I've made it PG by replacing words with asterisks). Although Ted C is not the most reliable source, I'll post it here anyway.


Elijah Wood--so say vets from the English soccer story The Yank--is helping give headline-blitzed and put-upon crew and cast members a bit of a mental break, à la Brad Pitt in Mr. And Mrs. Smith. Filming of The Yank--starring Wood, Charlie Hunnam and Claire Forlani, among others--in London has been hindered by creative challenges and set snafus, not to mention typically badgering Brit journalists, who stalk the set and send many of the actors into major Missy Hissy moods. Apparently, Wood's performance is so "amazing," folks are encouraged to get back to non-***** work.

Am not keen on production trouble but love the bit about Elijah's performance. What? Were they really expecting anything less from The Magnificent One?


Rikka, I did not know about the Internet! Makes me feel all the more lucky for what I have, however material it may seem to be. I grew up with the Internet and can't imagine life without it. (no Faculty Lounge :o)

Hobbityme, another great gift you're bringing to the Faculty!
Thanks again. :)

Apparently, Wood's performance is so "amazing," folks are encouraged to get back to non-***** work.

Am not keen on production trouble but love the bit about Elijah's performance. What? Were they really expecting anything less from The Magnificent One?
So, Elijah's professionalism and amazing performance seems to be inspiring on a slightly troubled set.
Good! Doesn't surprise me, but it's still good to read even if that Mr. Ted C is not the most reliable source.

bit of a mental break, à la Brad Pitt in Mr. And Mrs. Smith.
Can anybody explain this one to me, please?

Brad Pritt in Mr. and Mrs Smith?:confused:
Mental break à la Brad Pitt? :confused:

Originally posted by Moondancer
Can anybody explain this one to me, please?
Brad Pritt in Mr. and Mrs Smith?:confused:
Mental break à la Brad Pitt? :confused:
Hobbityme,
thanks for the pics, but please, please, I also need some explanations about Mr. Pitt!

And who is this Mr. Ted C?:confused:

Another great quote, hobbityme - thanks! Clearly Elijah is winning himself a whole new set of admirers from a totally different sphere. This can only be a Good Thing. (Ha - get a load of that, you who think he has only one expression!)

from rikka:
When I worked in a very small Moscow firm in 1994-95 we had a fax machine in office and it wasn't exotic thing there at all...

Well, no - but as you said yourself, Moscow is not a small town in the Ukraine. As I remember it, in western Europe too, fax was still the main method of fast written communication in the early to mid 1990s. So I don't think Alex's question is totally implausible, however funny it seems now. I remember being asked something like that in rural Croatia in 1996 ....
This is OT - sorry! :
Nowadays "eastern" Europe often has better communications than "western" Europe (e.g. Germany's "new" Länder often got state-of-the-art telecommunications technology long before the former West Germany did, because they were starting more or less from scratch). So the boot's now - partly - on the other foot, so to speak!

May be he has some drops of Jewish blood in him? Why not?

Yes, why not? I'd wondered that too. It might explain why he was involved in the Holocaust project (apart from simply being concerned about that issue, of course). Or then he may have been involved simply because he's done so many Jewish acting roles. North is yet another one, Achila - North's family is Jewish and the story is actually about American Jewish issues, apparently - although I gather the book made that a lot clearer than the film did (Tg may be able to comment on that?).

HEAVENLY CREATURES SPOILER ALERT !!!!!!





from honeyelf - some pages back!:
... Peter Jackson film "Heavenly Creatures" instead. Interesting that this story involved two teen-aged girls romantically involved with each other, and there was no problem showing that. But when it comes to depicting Sam being... Sam and caring for his master with tender and INNOCENT love, PJ couldn't do it.

Did I mention that, while in NZ, we visited the Christchurch park where the "Heavenly Creatures" murder took place? A very strange feeling. Have subsequently seen the film on DVD again. But that was a very different genre of film from LOTR. In essence it was a drama documentary about the girls' relationship, including the fantasy elements they wrote about in their diaries. The story was a huge scandal in NZ at the time and shocked the entire nation, if not the world. The girls' relationship, ultimately with sexual overtones, had to be depicted that way because it was fact and because it was the explanation for the otherwise incomprehensible murder of Pauline's mother, whom the girls saw as the main agent trying to separate them.
LOTR was made for a much wider audience, and the story works even without more explicit depictions of Sam's feelings for Frodo (and vice versa). There's been a lot of giggling and innuendo even with PJ's toned-down version of their relationship, so I can see why PJ and co felt it was safer to keep it toned down. In Tolkien's day they might have got away with showing more innocent love, because it might have been accepted as innocent. IMHO anyway.

Originally posted by serena
but as you said yourself, Moscow is not a small town in the Ukraine. So I don't think Alex's question is totally implausible,
Well, may be you are right, serena, it's OK if Alex is realy from a small town... (I didn't read the book so I'not sure in the detailes of the plot)

Originally posted by serena

In Tolkien's day they might have got away with showing more innocent love, because it might have been accepted as innocent. IMHO anyway.
Why do we have to live in such stupid and dirty days when this beautiful, touching and innocent love could not be accepted as innocent...:( This is a very painful matter for me after seing PJ's LOTR in the theaters because of stupid and nasty reaction of our modern "goblins" to Frodo and Sam relationship. At some moments I almost hated to be in a theater and to listen these dirty and bawdy comments.:mad:

Rikka, I did not know about the Internet! Makes me feel all the more lucky for what I have, however material it may seem to be.
hobbityme,
Being a part of the "gold billion" is a very lucky chance, indeed! :D
But if to speak seriously this is a sad reality of this world. The life possibilities of every person are to a big extent formed just by his/her place of birth. Well, this is not just, but in fact we can do nothing about it. This is the way this world is going on and I doubt we will see any real changes of this rule during our lifetime.

Originally posted by serena
Or then he may have been involved simply because he's done so many Jewish acting roles. North is yet another one, Achila - North's family is Jewish and the story is actually about American Jewish issues, apparently - although I gather the book made that a lot clearer than the film did (Tg may be able to comment on that?).
The movie does more than make it less clear--it completely obliterates it, as far as I can tell. But, yes, in the book it could even be said that discovering his Jewish heritage is the main outcome of North's adventures. It does seem to me that Elijah mentioned in an interview--back around the time the movie was made--that North was Jewish. So either Elijah knew that from the book, or the original idea for the movie kept something of that element. (I know I've said this before, but... IMVVHO, changing one of the important characters from an elderly Jewish comedian into the Easter bunny (!) is more "omission" than was necessary :rolleyes: ).

There's been a lot of giggling and innuendo even with PJ's toned-down version of their relationship, so I can see why PJ and co felt it was safer to keep it toned down.
"It has been ever thus" regarding Frodo and Sam, of course, long before the movies were made. But I remember that after FotR came out, there was a lot of discussion about whether the scene in the boat at the end was "too much," because some people found it uncomfortable or snickered at it. IMHO (and that of a lot of other people) it was very appropriate and also brave of PJ to include it even though some people were certainly going to "take it the wrong way." Part of the positive heritage of the movies may be having some people re-think open affection between men.

(And I need to add a request for that Brad Pitt explanation, too :o .)

Originally posted by tgshaw
Part of the positive heritage of the movies may be having some people re-think open affection between men.
[/B]
Are you really sure, tg, this could work? May be in your country it will... But watching ROTK in Moscow theaters made me very pessimistic about it.

When some months before the ROTK opening night I found out that one of my favorite book scenes (when Sam finds Frodo in the Tower of Cirith Ungol) will be against the book canon, I was very disappointed.

But my clever friend told me: "Listen to me, we are lucky that PJ decided to avoid Frodo's nakedness. You remember stupid reaction of our public to the scene in a boat in FOTR, for example? Yeah, you do... I remember you rage... And now imagine the reaction for naked Frodo in Sam's arms in CU... Do you want to go through this ordeal? Do you? "

Well, watching ROTK in our theaters I had to agree with her. The canon scene in CU is impossible on the screen, at least here. Some our idiots giggled and made obscene comments even at the scene on the rock ("I'm glad to be here with you" moment)... Even at Frodo and Sam last farewell embrace in the GH scene. :mad:

thanks rikka for the picS!!
They are lovly can look at him for ever!!

for the new pics from the yank!!
i like movies with violens but i wonder about
this one. i know the holigans are violent but oh
i dont know why i have trubbel with this one.
maybe becuse i havent seen Elijah like this before.
i mean some actors always playes violent movies and nothing
else so you get juse to that but Elijah hasent play such rolls
before,or? and look at his beutiful face with all the blood
(movieblood)i get the shills!!!!!!

and for the words about his perfomance why are they so
suprised?? i am not,not the least!!!!!!!!!!::confused: :confused: :k :k

(((rikka))) -- That's really too bad. Out of 22 theater viewings of FotR, 9 of TTT, and 11 (so far) of RotK, I've never heard a snicker at any of the moments of affection between Frodo and Sam, or between any of the male characters (although I'm sure there was some elbow nudging or talk after the movie was over). There's sometimes some murmuring when the "hobbit stuff" goes into extra innings ;) at the end of RotK, but I don't think it has so much to do with the affection shown as it does with people thinking the movie's over (several times :p ) and then having it start up again.

Maybe twice I've heard a murmur or two (but no laughing) when the hug between Frodo and Sam goes on so long at the Grey Havens. BTW, I've developed a theory for that for those of us who've never heard "I love you" there :) . During that embrace, I've recited (in my head) Frodo's words to Sam heard in the final voiceover--and there's plenty of time for all of it to fit in while we're not seeing Frodo's face. Is Frodo possibly saying that to Sam very quietly while they're hugging? It would explain the change that comes over Sam's face, and also why the hug goes on for as long as it does. -- Just a theory, but it works for me :) .

--------------

The line I've always been afraid will get inappropriate laughter in RotK is Frodo's "Now that I'm here, I don't think I want to," which IMO could come across as funny (and actually, IMHO, would be a perfect line for book-Frodo's sense of humor, although he never says it). But everyone seems too in-tune with Frodo at that moment to find it humorous.

OTOH, there's a lot of appropriate laughter from the audience, too. I wait with a smile on my face for Gimli's, "That still just counts as one!" which always gets the biggest laugh of the movie.

I think "Illuminated" will be a good movie. The Lad seems to be picking some really good stuff. It looks like all of the LotR major actors are pretty busy - Dominic Mon.'s pilot looks like it has promise, Orlando's got Troy, Sean's busy, Billy's 2003 movies had what - about 30 Oscar nominations between them? Viggo's been busy, Andy Sirkus is in a pretty major movie.

I'm sure that writers/producers/director/cast/crew of The Yank had no idea of the interest that their little movie would generate. I'm sure that they don't have the means for extensive security, especially for the location shooting. It sounds like a whole new set of people are falling a little bit in love with a certain blue-eyed Yank.

I've been thinking, btw, about a picture that I remember seeing of the first (or one of the first) meetings between PJ, Elijah, and Sean Astin. Elijah, of course, looked a lot like he did in The Faculty. The picture struck me because Elijah looked so - I dunno- ethereal? Like next to Sean's solid presence, he looked like he was in danger of floating off the couch? Elfin? Does anyone know where I can find it? Is it from one of the "Making of" books?

Re Yank photos: Either Elijah's face has gotten older (or maybe he's just making it look older) or his body is taking on a more adult look. He just looks a lot more solid, though maybe that's just layered clothing because of a chilly British spring? I can't decide whether he has a boy's face on a man's body or a man's face on a boy's body.


Ah, yes, we certainly are pushing cultural buttons around here this week! ;) I keep repeating to myself "cultural diversity, cultural diversity". ;)

The word "negro", of course, means "black", but its use to describe Americans of African descent is way too close for comfort to an even more derogatory term used in this country. Even to a white transplanted Yankee like me (meaning "from North of the Mason-Dixon Line", not "from the USA"), the term "Negro" drags along four hundred years of injustice, enslavement, acrimony, war, terrorism, murder, Jim Crow laws, restrictive covenants, "Separate but Equal", "Plessy vs. Fergusen", "Brown vs. Board of Education", "Whites only", Dred Scott, "DWB", and discrimination. To me, it goes way beyond political correctness to avoid its use to describe people.

So yes, it's a very obvious thing to address in "Illuminated" to show cultural difference.

I'm still puzzling over this one:
Originally posted by serena:
So what's with all these Jewish roles for Elijah? It surely can't be his facial features, so it just has to be his name that pulls him in that direction

Then Rikka: For me the shape of his eyes seems very "Mediterranean"... May be he has some drops of Jewish blood in him? Why not? America is the place where all nations are mixed...

Ah, yes, the ol' American Political Correctness is bubbling up again... ;)

Maybe some of the interesting movies that he's been in have had Jewish characters?

Many of those of Jewish faith and heritage in the US are descendants of Europeans, Western and Eastern, of Jewish heritage. I'm not really sure if there's a definable set of facial features or coloring in this country, let alone a kind of blood, that defines a "Jewish race".

As for religious heritage, from the Wood children's names (Elijah, Zach, Hannah), and their place of origin (American Midwest), I'm more inclined to think conservative Bible-thumping Protestant. But not with the mouth on that one! :D

~grumpy
(My nephew's name is Ivan. Does that mean he's Russian? :p )

Originally posted by wood
thanks rikka for the picS!!

i dont know why i have trubbel with this one.
maybe becuse i havent seen Elijah like this before.

You are welcome, wood, I'm glad that you like the pics.

If to speak about violence in Y/H, I don't think this is the right explanation. You HAVE seen EW's character like this before and even worse. Frodo went throuht harder tourtures and suffering, in ROTK violence (in Frodo's case) is also very graphic... Doesn't it shock you, too, then? Or, may be the answer is that there you see Frodo, and at Y/H pics - Elijah as a person? But this is not him, too... just his character (don't know his name).

Personally I'm not shocked by Y/H pics. I know what foolball hooligans are. I saw them in action in RL. I only was shockingly surprised by brutality of that "Chelsea smile" thing - I've never seen anything like it. Looking at it I thought with grief than humah beings are unbelievably ingenious in creation of different ways to humiliate and torture other human beings... Sometimes I think that we are very nasty creatures by our nature. :(

tg said: I've never heard a snicker at any of the moments of affection between Frodo and Sam, or between any of the male characters (although I'm sure there was some elbow nudging or talk after the movie was over
(((tg))) Thanks for your sympathy. This really hurts to sit in the theater waiting for the next burst of gigglings and bad jokes - figuratively saying, every new one is like a strike of a whip. :( Here some goblins laughed also at the dialog between Merry and Pippin at Pelennor Field (when Pip finds wounded Merry). Here men do not accept real tenderness and affection in realtions between men and reject it.

I'm still puzzling over this one... (...) Ah, yes, the ol' American Political Correctness is bubbling up again...

zkgrumpy,
I do not understand what is puzzling you in my comment about EW's eyes... Sincerely! :confused: Beautiful eyes, but obviously not an anglo-saxon or any nothern european type... look like some of his far forefathers were from Mediterranean area - Italy, Greece, or Middle East... What wrong or offensive for EW did I say? From my poin of view - nothing... But now I feel myself like Alex, asking in complete bewilderment "What's wrong with negrous"? :) Well, I suspect this is exaclty the sign of the same cultural difference as between Jonathan and Alex in the script. ;)

I'm afraid that "American Political Correctness" will always puzzling me.:D

P.S. Wood is from Catholic family. He told it himself.

tg, we agree again--


BTW, I've developed a theory for that for those of us who've never heard "I love you" there . During that embrace, I've recited (in my head) Frodo's words to Sam heard in the final voiceover--and there's plenty of time for all of it to fit in while we're not seeing Frodo's face. Is Frodo possibly saying that to Sam very quietly while they're hugging? It would explain the change that comes over Sam's face, and also why the hug goes on for as long as it does. -- Just a theory, but it works for me .

That's such a standard cinematic technique that I'm quite sure it's what Jackson was doing--it struck me the first time I saw it. And there really IS no other time for Frodo to say that to Sam than during their embrace.

I have this vague memory of reading somewhere that the Wood family are Catholic, but I could be wrong about that.

Originally posted by tgshaw
The line I've always been afraid will get inappropriate laughter in RotK is Frodo's "Now that I'm here, I don't think I want to," which IMO could come across as funny (and actually, IMHO, would be a perfect line for book-Frodo's sense of humor, although he never says it).

I often smile at that line, because it *does* seem to have a wry twist to it, but perhaps that's just me. I don't doubt Frodo's being honest, but OTOH I think there's a tinge of humor to Elijah's delivery.

originally posted by zkgrumpy
To me, it goes way beyond political correctness to avoid its use to describe people.

I think you mean that you don't have to be politically correct to want to avoid using the term? If so, I agree. I've heard some older people say they really don't mind "negro," but everyone in my generation seems to prefer either "black" of "African American" (I think I'm kind of on the cusp of a shift there - "Black" was definitely the term of choice in the sixties, but "African American" seems to be the choice of the current generation).

I'm chuckling over the "does Elijah look Jewish?" discussion. Hubby's always being asked if he's Jewish - he's of English extraction and doesn't know of any Jewish blood in his heritage. His best friend *is* Jewish, but looks like a prep boy from the East Coast (which he is as well) - he's got lighter hair and skin than hubby's and a much smaller nose. ;) :p

I think Americans, in particular, have kind of an iffy grasp of what people from various types of the world really look like, and tend to generalize from one type. All Swedes are blondes sort of stuff. I remember all the stuff during World War II on "how to tell a Japanese from a Chinese" - and now, having lived in Korea, people no longer look "Asian" to me; they look Chinese or Japanese or Korean or sorta-Polynesian or whatever.

OTOH, my landlady in Korea mixed my husband up with another American tenant - and my husband is tall with dark hair while the other guy was short with red hair! :eek: There's a movie-maker who argues that teaching our kids the concept of "green" teaches them to ignore differences and to stop actually "seeing" - I wonder if the concept of "American" does the same for some people. :confused:

Sheryl

Here's a quote from "Starburst" magazine that I particularly like:

JOHN HOWE: "Some of the images from the film are so strong that I have a very difficult time getting past them.... I found Elijah Wood so amazing as Frodo, when I draw Frodo, it's very hard for me to get past the likeness of Elijah. It's such a strong image. Really, everybody in the film fits their parts so perfectly, it's probably going to be hard for anybody who does Tolkien illustrations not to copy the actors' likenesses."

It's interesting when you begin to talk about what people look like, in terms of "do they look Jewish, Catholic", etc. First off, Jewish is a religion, and how can you look like you follow a particular religion? This tends to always make me chuckle, but yes, I know what serena meant and I didn't take any offense -- believe me! :) I'm Jewish (well, I was raised Jewish but am not practising) and I hear this all the time, since I don't have the stereotypical "Eastern European Jewish" features either, but my family is variously from Germany, Poland and Russia. Of course, as you all know, there are Italian Jews, English Jews, Spanish Jews, etc etc -- and the falashas are Ethiopian Jews. None of them "look" Jewish either.

I guess we're all such mutts at this point that few Americans from families that have been here a while look much like any particular ethnicity. I've often wondered what blood Elijah might have. His mother's sister, Molly (who is a professional musician, btw) uses her maiden name "Nova" (speaking of which, you guys MUST see this! http://www.mollynovahawk.com/elijah.htm, and look at the rest of the site at http://www.mollynovahawk.com/lynx.html too) and I have no idea what ethnicity that might be. "Wood" is English, but I'm supposing there's some other UK-type blood there too, possibly "black Irish".

Yes, his mother raised him Catholic but he doesn't practice anymore -- with siblings named Zachariah Nathaniel and Hannah Blessing (not to mention the fact that he's Elijah Jordan), you can bet there was a fairly strict religious upbringing.

to rikka

i know there is violens in rotk i have seen it 10 times now!
but i think i reacted in a diffrent way about that movie
becuse as i see it, it is more like physical violense in rotk
and ofcurse it hurts very very much to see and i cry every time i see it. and in the yank
its fysikal violens and some how thats seams to efect me in anothe way oh.my god
i just cant explain way!!!!:( :( :(

Originally posted by Achila
It's interesting when you begin to talk about what people look like, in terms of "do they look Jewish, Catholic", etc. First off, Jewish is a religion, and how can you look like you follow a particular religion?
Achila ,
If a person is an orthodoxal follower of any religion, he can! :)
But speaking about "looking like"staff we didn't mean religion, of course. Just ethnic phisical types. You can be "nontypical" Jewish... Like I'm not typical Russian in features (my far far forefathers were somewhere from Poland or Lithuania and I inherited their "Baltic" type), but my younger sister "is" typical Russian in look.... And every "traditional" nation (ethnos) have some number of steady phisical types (phenotypes) - there is no sense to deny this fact. This is just biology and nothing else.... May be Americans are an exclusion because this is the nation of emigrants? I don't know.

I have no information about the Wood family roots. I may just guess, looking at him. All of us regularly find EW's features (and particularly his eyes!) in the old Italian and in antient Greec art -because such huge, gorgeous, beautiful eyes are very typical for peoples of Mediterranean region of this globe... I think this is not just a coincidence.

Molly uses her maiden name "Nova" (...) and I have no idea what ethnicity that might be
By the way, his mother''s sister family name sound slavic. "Nova" in many slavic languages means "new". So may be some of the rools of his mother's family are somewhere in Eastern Europe, too.

wood said: it is more like physical violense in rotk
From my point of view, this is a lot of phisical violence in ROTK, too... All those Frodo's wounds, they look terrible... And his two fights with Gollum - in the Lair and at the slopes of MD - are quite violent. I'm not sure that violence in Y/H will hurt me more - it depends of how much I will compassionate EW's character. I always loved Frodo and the violence against him hurts me a lot. But may be a new EW's character will be such a f*** lousy creature that I would like to give him a good blow myself. :D

P.S. OOOPS! My 100th post at KD.

Congratulations on your 100th post, Rikka :cool: !

I'd written some on the ethnicity/PC discussion(s), but Sheryl and Achila have already hit all the points I was going to, so I deleted my ramblings on that :) .
Originally posted by Flourish
That's such a standard cinematic technique that I'm quite sure it's what Jackson was doing--it struck me the first time I saw it. And there really IS no other time for Frodo to say that to Sam than during their embrace.
:o See, that comes from not seeing many movies (just seeing a few movies many times ;) ). All these "standard cinematic techniques" are new discoveries for me, so I'm very easily entertained :o . [BTW, it took me a half-dozen or so viewings to figure this out--before that, I assumed the voiceover material to Sam was written at the end of the Red Book.]

-----------

On the violence in RotK vs. in H/Y, at least where Elijah's concerned, I understand what wood's saying (but I'm not sure exactly how to say it, either :confused: ). Even though what Frodo goes through affects him physically, to the point that he's close to death when he's carried from Mount Doom, we see very little outward physical violence against him. The Ring affects his entire being, but it works from within. The journey grinds him down and takes every bit of physical energy he has, but that's a much slower process than getting beaten up, so IMHO it doesn't have quite the same effect on us. The three times Frodo suffers what would normally be thought of as physical violence are the ones he mentions to Gandalf on the way back to the Shire: being wounded by sword, sting and tooth--and I think those three moments in the movies do bring a strong reaction from most of us. But it sounds like the violence in H/Y will be a lot more concentrated, in that it'll be a larger percentage of the movie than it is in any of the LotR movies (at least Frodo's part of them). And the character will be more beaten, bruised and bloodied--more quickly and more visibly than Frodo is. Sounds like he's also going to be handing some of it out in ways some of us might not want to see (the quote about him going from "scared ****less to psycho"). The violence Frodo goes through is insidious, which in reality would make it more dangerous, but also makes it less visible to the audience.

Don't know if that makes any sense. It seemed like a simple concept until I tried to put it into words :( . Maybe wood can tell if that's kind of what she was saying, or if I'm talking about only my own reactions there.

Rikka, I've just read this comment from someone posting on the IMDB site (re "Illuminated"):

there's an open casting call for two Ukrainian actors to fill the roles of both Alex and Grandfather so...

No idea if this person really knows anything, but there may still be hope!

Originally posted by serena
Rikka, I've just read this comment from someone posting on the IMDB site (re "Illuminated"):

there's an open casting call for two Ukrainian actors to fill the roles of both Alex and Grandfather so...

No idea if this person really knows anything, but there may still be hope!

YEEEES!!! (((serena))) :k thanks for good news!
I hope this is true. If they find a good actor, this could be really funny - all those Jonathan-Alex conversations.:D

P.S. tg, thanks for congratulations! :)

tg! i agree with you it was something like that i meant!!
but can anybody tell me why it is so hard to put something
on paper when you know it in you head?

and rikka i agree with you too!!
maybe it will be a littel bit eysier with the violens in yank when i learn more about Elijahs caracter!!
i mean i have always loved frodo seens i first read the books
and with elijah in the roll the love grows stronger!!!:k :k
and maybe i love elijah to much thats why my reactions are deeper with the violens in yanks (its the violens against Elijah
in my head)not his caracter!
NO NO NO i stop this discussion right now!!!!
i cant put down what i mean sorry sorry i rumbling
again lets talk about something else!!

so any other new about mr.blue eyes!!!!!


:D :D :( :( :(

I didn't hear any fresh news about Mr. Wood.
Just a pic - to comfort you, wood! :) Don't worry so much about Y/H - this is only a role. A new one and ( if Eru helps ;) ) a good one for the boy.

i will let this subjekt go

i know its just a roll and i think it will be a very good one!!

thanks for the pic rikka!!:k :k :D :D

I believe that the open casting call is true:

http://www.brama.com/news/press/2004/03/040324everythingisilluminated.html

Hope that helps!


(I'm still hoping against hope that Elijah will also be playing Safran. It will be a BIG stretch for him if he does. (I could definitely see him in the part)

Wow, I've just read all those posts that have suddenly appeared (above my last one) and I can only echo what Rikka said:

zkgrumpy, I do not understand what is puzzling you

:confused:
I've been intrigued for ages about Elijah's five Jewish roles. If he'd played, say, five Catholic or Japanese or French or Buddhist or Ukrainian or Navajo roles I'd have been just as intrigued about that. Wouldn't you? It just makes me wonder if he has a special affinity with the religion or ethnicity - for the word can and does apply to both, does it not? (New Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition of the word "Jew": "(1) a person of Hebrew descent; a person whose religion is Judaism".) The Jewish people I know refer to themselves as such, whatever their nationality, because they are proud of the fact. Isn't it slightly insulting if we are allowed to identify some religions or ethnicities but not others?

And Rikka is right when she talks of phenotypes. One of my friends here is Texan, but is proud of being - and looking - part Cherokee. He says there is a typically Cherokee look, and he should know. That's just one example. Sheryl says people look Chinese or Japanese or Korean or sorta-Polynesian; if they didn't have distinctive features, how would she recognise them? I'm always being told I look typically English, and I haven't taken offence yet, because I know exactly what the people concerned mean. I live and work in a highly multicultural environment and my friends and I find that we can often recognise nationalities at a glance, including our own. Scottish people tend to be highly recognisable - there are several very distinctive physical types there. Another friend was once told not to walk down the Shankill Road (in Belfast) with a face like his, because he looks so Irish Catholic (he was in fact born in Liverpool, but is of Irish Catholic descent!).
I also have two friends who are blond, blue-eyed Jewish Italians who grew up in Canada. Both say they look Jewish, but they certainly don't think Elijah does - the subject actually came up in conversation a couple of weeks ago when we were discussing "Everything is Illuminated". They do think Adrian Brody looked the part in "The Pianist", however. Does that clarify things?

Achila, thanks for knowing what I meant. And thanks for the link to the Molly Nova site! Not exactly a surprise that Elijah has musicians in the family! :) Nice to know the Cedar Rapids people are so proud of him.

Edit after seeing hobbityme's post:
Thanks, hobbityme! That is fantastic news. Give Ukrainians a chance to play Ukrainians, I'd say!

Second edit: a former boyfriend of mine (English, with big blue eyes :) but otherwise not at all like Elijah) tells everyone he has a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother. He himself, he says, is not strictly Jewish, because Jewishness is inherited through the female line. But he still thinks he looks Jewish. If he can say that, why can't anyone else?
I'm just asking.

Let me say first that I'm finding this discussion fascinating--in large part because we have such a widespread community here, and it does seem that people from different parts of the world have somewhat different attitudes toward ethnicity. IMHO, if that's kept in mind, it can stay a fascinating, enlightening discussion--if we remember that some of us are probably going to very honestly misunderstand (or not understand at all) what someone else is saying, because we're coming from all different angles. (((Faculty))) [And isn't it nice that the whole thing is on topic ;) ?]

Originally posted by serena
I've been intrigued for ages about Elijah's five Jewish roles. If he'd played, say, five Catholic or Japanese or French or Buddhist or Ukrainian or Navajo roles I'd have been just as intrigued about that. Wouldn't you? It just makes me wonder if he has a special affinity with the religion or ethnicity -
With all the causes available to be involved in, Elijah chose a program on Holocaust remembrance. He doesn't strike me as the type of celebrity who'd decide that on the basis of how much publicity he could get out of it, or by drawing it from a hat. I don't know if anyone's ever asked him "Why that?" (A long, long time ago there was a link posted in this thread to the project's website, so there might be an explanation there--or not :rolleyes: .)

It's very tempting to think that his role in The Witness had something to do with it, just because he was so young (and impressionable?) at the time. He would have had to have known the character's situation, as well as what was happening that he stood there and watched all the time. IMHO, someone as curious, intelligent, and sensitive as Elijah would have wanted to learn more. -- I have no evidence to link that to his involvement with the program, but it's intriguing. (The only other causes I know of him being connected with were the hockey game that IIRC was to raise money for a fund for seriously ill children, and the literacy site where he read "Me and My Cat?")

...for the word can and does apply to both, does it not? (New Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition of the word "Jew": "(1) a person of Hebrew descent; a person whose religion is Judaism".)
Hopefully, it does make it clear that sometimes only one of those definitions will apply to a particular person.

The Jewish people I know refer to themselves as such, whatever their nationality, because they are proud of the fact. Isn't it slightly insulting if we are allowed to identify some religions or ethnicities but not others?
Now that question brought me up short! I think there are a few considerations that would be involved, at least in the U.S. One is that people can identify themselves however they want to, but it would often be considered impolite for someone else to bring up the subject or ask them about it first. That might be partly a privacy issue for us individualistic Americans (it's been scientifically documented, for example, that we claim more "personal space" than people in most cultures). There are a lot of other areas, too, that it would be considered impolite to ask about if the person involved doesn't bring it up first. (I've heard a few people from other countries ask someone they've just met, flat out, "How much money do you make?" :eek: :eek: !!)

Secondly, I think the whole issue of "looking" a particular ethnicity pushes some buttons for Americans because it can feed so much into stereotypes. This is especially tricky in a place where most of us are "mutts" rather than coming from a single ethnic background, so we're aware that someone can look like one thing and be something else. But stereotyping has certainly been used in other parts of the world. Nosferatu is just one example, but IMHO it's a particularly chilling one. If you make the vampire look very stereotypically Jewish, all kinds of messages (conscious and subconscious) are being sent. I thought it was interesting that in Elijah's Oliver Twist movie (see! see! on topic ;) !), it's never mentioned that Fagin is Jewish (which he is in the book), but Richard Dreyfuss is made up to look stereotypically Jewish. I'd love to find out the reasoning behind that one... :confused:

I'm not sure, but I think Richard Dreyfuss is Jewish, which would make the above even more strange. It would be like the reviewer who said that Elijah didn't look like a 21-year-old when he was 21--so what in the world does a 21-year-old look like? So we'd have a Jewish actor made up to look Jewish?? What does a Jew look like, then? :confused: Maybe some of us go too far in trying to avoid stereotyping people, but IMHO that's because we've seen it go so far in the other direction. There have certainly been times and places when "looking Jewish" was dangerous. Sadly, in the last few years a lot of Americans have suffered for "looking Arabic."

And, finally, regarding being "...allowed to identify some religions or ethnicities but not others": The religions and ethnicities affected are (without exception, as far as I can think) ones that have been discriminated against or persecuted because of that identity. That might be more obvious in America because an awful lot of the people who came here historically were fleeing from persecution somewhere else--but coming to a new country didn't necessarily make them feel safe, or even stop all of the persecution. If you take that background (and it's not all history--it's still happening today, just with different groups of people), add in the indigenous people and the descendents of those forced here as slaves, you have an awful lot of people who are aware that they or recent ancestors have suffered for being part of that ethnic or religious group.

Something I've realized while writing this is that although most countries have groups who would be considered minorities or outsiders, or who've faced problems because of their identity, in America there have been so many of those groups, both past and present. But even though that sometimes causes clashes between different groups, I wonder if it isn't part of what makes us hang together? It would be a tremendous thing if we could get to a point where no one has to be afraid of how they'll be treated just because they belong to a certain group--and there would be no answer at all to that very interesting question (instead of a Faculty-length post trying to sort some of it out ).

Flourish:
I just got my copy of Starburst magazine too--and I'm amazed I did as the paper shipping envelope had torn open at both ends!

:eek: :eek: Yikes!:eek: :eek:

HoneyElf eyes her mail box nervously. I want my Starburst!

Serena:

there's an open casting call for two Ukrainian actors to fill the roles of both Alex and Grandfather so...

But according to IMDB Jason Schwartzman has been cast as....? maybe not Alex as we had originally thought?

from "Ted C"
Apparently, Wood's performance is so "amazing," folks are encouraged to get back to non-***** work.

I cannot WAIT to see this movie! Pages and pages back someone mentioned another fave actor (something about a movie that went straight to DVD, I think) John Malcovich. I always loved watching him, and that sense of carefully controlled anger boiling under the urbane surface, then when his character would vent his anger! :o HoneyElf fans herself.

Well, I can't wait to see Elijah do "scared ****less to psycho," violence or no!

Re: Laughing moments in RoTK The first time I saw it was a Trilogy Tuesday, so a pretty savvy crowd. There was some laughter at Frodo's line, "Now that I see it, I don't think I want to," but stifled sobs at his "I can't go back." The line that seemed to get the most humorous reaction, though, was Sam's at "the end of all things," when he says: " Rosie Cotton dancin'! She had ribbons in her hair!" I thought that was pretty weird!

Honey!

Originally posted by honeyelf
The line that seemed to get the most humorous reaction, though, was Sam's at "the end of all things," when he says: " Rosie Cotton dancin'! She had ribbons in her hair!" I thought that was pretty weird!

Maybe they'd been reading the "Return of the Pants" thread (http://www.khazaddum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2518) :p :D . It's made me lose my concentration at that point (and a few others :) ) on occasion.

"Rosie Cotton dancin'. She had ribbons in her pants."
"Nooooo! You will not take my pants from me!"
"I am Isildur's pants! Fight for me!"
"I looked into your pants and I saw death."

what do you think about this one?
what a god looking man(i think)

Thanks for your (as always) enlightened post, Tg.

The religions and ethnicities affected are (without exception, as far as I can think) ones that have been discriminated against or persecuted because of that identity.

Yes, of course. My point is that ethnic differences can be celebrated, not denied. If we deny something we are earmarking it as unacceptable in some way. Fortunately ethnic and other personal differences ARE being celebrated in recent decades - as in the black, gay/lesbian and "big is beautiful" movements, to name but three.

... people can identify themselves however they want to, but it would often be considered impolite for someone else to bring up the subject or ask them about it first.
... There are a lot of other areas, too, that it would be considered impolite to ask about if the person involved doesn't bring it up first.
Yes again. This is, if anything, even more true of the UK than of the US (I've often been amazed at the personal questions asked by US citizens!). Yet Avalon, North, Witness and Illuminated are ABOUT being Jewish, so one can hardly discuss them without mentioning that element!

Anyway, as I said before I'm totally thrilled about Elijah's latest project and I think the book is a masterpiece.

First of all, thanks Achila for that link. Very cool site of a proud aunt.

it does seem that people from different parts of the world have somewhat different attitudes toward ethnicity. IMHO, if that's kept in mind, it can stay a fascinating, enlightening discussion--if we remember that some of us are probably going to very honestly misunderstand (or not understand at all) what someone else is saying, because we're coming from all different angles.
I enjoy reading about the different attitudes. Indeed, keeping in mind that this thread has people from different sides of the world, it's only logical that we don't think alike on every topic.
The American idea of "political correctness" intrigues me as well, because it differs a bit from my West-European idea (I think) but I won't go into it because that would be a bit too much off topic.
I live in a small country, with the main collision of two different cultures (Wallonia in the South of Belgium and Flanders in the North). The result of that collision is that politics in our country is a very complicated affair, keeping everybody happy (while people are often being difficult just to oppose the other side). We have never really fought (using violence...I'd like to think that most Belgians are peace-loving people because we have directly felt too many times what a war can do to people) but it sometimes takes only one misplaced word from somebody in the media to start a big ugly stupid debate.


Maybe it's naive of me, but I never thought about the fact that Elijah having played a couple of Jewish roles might have something to do with his background. I just thought that it's coincidence. I always thought that the story is the main reason for Elijah to take on the part and if the character happens to be Jewish, fine. He would also have taken the role if the character was Irish, Canadian,...

ETA: nothing major, just a little report about one of the fight scenes in the movie
Streets transformed for star's new film - Rickwood & Twickenham Times (http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.483037.0.streets_transformed_for_stars_new_film.php)

Originally posted by tgshaw
it does seem that people from different parts of the world have somewhat different attitudes toward ethnicity. IMHO, if that's kept in mind, it can stay a fascinating, enlightening discussion--if we remember that some of us are probably going to very honestly misunderstand (or not understand at all) what someone else is saying, because we're coming from all different angles.
tg, you are eloquent as always. :) I read you post very carefully and not once, trying to understand the ideas. Well, I must say this is the most complicated and sofisticated attitude toward ethnicity I ever met. :)
Here everything is much simplier, more obvious and direct. Russia is a Federation, where live more than 100 nationalities, big and small, and all of them are kin to keep their ethnic indentity and to express it. There are enough of national regions where people speak their languages and Russians are a minority...We have enough of ethnic problems and we try to discuss them - to find a solution .

Anyway, while I can't accept you ideas, I respect them. And you are quite right saying that we are so different here, at the faculty, that we always have to keep in mind this difference.

people can identify themselves however they want to, but it would often be considered impolite for someone else to (...) ask them about it first.
This is a very obvious example of difference. While this behaviour is considerd impolite in th US (or GB), in my country this is quite normal, there is nothing rude or offensive in such a question, if it was asked in polite form.

I've heard a few people from other countries ask someone they've just met, flat out, "How much money do you make?" :eek: :eek: !!)
Well, understanding that the person you are talking to is just not like you, belongs to different culture and traditions, IMHO, heples to save nerves. :) I know it is considered impolite in Western countries to ask money questions - so I will never ask . But, for example, if you know beforehand that in the countries of former Soviet Union this question is quite normal between people, you will not be terribly shoked if you hear it from some Russian or Ukrainian, right? Because you will be ready for this possibility... ;)

On the way to tolerance, IMHO, an information about differences and other peoples traditions is a great help. Otherwise they will speak like Jonathan and Alex, shoking each other with every second phrase! :) I spent 4 years of my life with a boy-friend who was French, and I admit that a lot of our family quarrels started exactly from this cultural misunderstanding and differens in "behaviour stereotypes" (at it is called in science). We just understood same things (events, phrases, jestures) in a very different way and reacted on them differently and this lead to misunderstanding and conflicts. What was appropriate and normal for him was not normal for me and visa versa. But after we learned these differences, everything became easier, because we knew what to wait from each other.

And I love this discussion because I learned a lot from it..

But anyway it's far from the topic, so I will stop here and try to avoid this theme in future, particularly if this point is so painful for the US Faculty members. I like all of you too much so don't want to hurt your feelings.:k

Back to the topic.
I love to know that in Y/H EW's character is very emotional - all this "scared ****less to psycho" things. This young actor always had a very strong temperament, but in his last movies all might of it was canalised inside his characters, if you follow me - all of them, including Frodo, were intraverts who hold all their feelings inside them. The EW's last role with "open" emotions was in... In The War I think! About 10 years ago. And it was one of his best parts! I antisipate to see how he will do emotional outbursts now, when he's older and more experienced actor.

Originally posted by Rikka
I love to know that in Y/H EW's character is very emotional - all this "scared ****less to psycho" things. This young actor always had a very strong temperament, but in his last movies all might of it was canalised inside his characters, if you follow me - all of them, including Frodo, were intraverts who hold all their feelings inside them. The EW's last role with "open" emotions was in... In The War I think! About 10 years ago. And it was one of his best parts! I antisipate to see how he will do emotional outbursts now, when he's older and more experienced actor.
Yes--I think Stu is probably Elijah's most openly emotional character. He does a brilliant job there (IMHO, Stu is one of the characters where Elijah completely disappears), and I'm glad, too, that he's doing another character where he gets to "let loose" some. I wonder if that's something that develops in the character during the story--that would be interesting, too.

My guess is that Elijah plays so many internally-directed characters because he can. There are a number of actors who can openly emote well enough to convince and emotionally affect the audience (go down the list of recent winners of Oscars for acting :rolleyes: ). I'm "preaching to the choir" here by saying that Elijah can do it better than any of them, but, sadly, he can't play every role out there :( ;) .

But, anyway, there's no one who has even close to Elijah's ability to play an internally-directed character. When we try to find someone to compare that talent to, we always end up with someone who's no longer around--James Stewart, Gregory Peck. That's why (yeah, yeah, for about the thousandth time :p ) I was so glad when he was cast as Frodo. There's no one else I could even imagine in that role. Frodo's the fictional character I love like no other, and IMHO the most internally complex. Now that Elijah's done with that ( :( ), I'm very happy to have him take whatever parts he wants ;) . I hope he continues to take a real variety of roles.

Moondancer--thanks for the link to the article. Glad to have some context for the pictures that have been coming out (a stolen car :eek: --this could be interesting!). And, of course, any article that points out that Elijah's a major movie star is great journalism! :)

-------------

from Serena
My point is that ethnic differences can be celebrated, not denied. If we deny something we are earmarking it as unacceptable in some way. Fortunately ethnic and other personal differences ARE being celebrated in recent decades - as in the black, gay/lesbian and "big is beautiful" movements, to name but three.
I completely agree with what you're saying there. Those kinds of movements are what gives me hope that some day no one will feel--consciously or subconciously--that there's any reason for them to hide (or even ignore) part of who they are. My only point was that, sadly, I don't think the world is completely there yet, so IMHO there's still room for sensitivity toward people who may still feel they have a reason to do so. Is the world better in that area than it used to be? Definitely--much of the change due to people who are celebrating their full identities, as you said! And hopefully the world will keep moving in the right direction. There's an entire "subculture" of people living the American Southwest who are descendants of Jews who fled from the Spanish Inquisition. The current generation is the first that doesn't see a reason to keep their Jewish heritage a "family secret." There is hope!

Originally posted by tgshaw: There's no one else I could even imagine in that role. Frodo's the fictional character I love like no other, and IMHO the most internally complex.
Some days ago I rewatched my ROTK crebain and was mooved again so deeply by EW''s Frodo... Every next time the GH is more and more paiful and sorrowful for me; it's so difficult to loose again and again the character you really love... And EW does this scene so brilliantly that every time I feel like this farewell is for the first time and - forever...
Originally posted by tgshaw
There are a number of actors who can openly emote well enough to convince and emotionally affect the audience (go down the list of recent winners of Oscars for acting ) .

Watching the movie I realised again that for me the only problem with acting in ROTK is with Sean Austin. From my point of view his acting in 3d film is not ideal. Some scenes are great (for example, GH or the Crack of Doom), but there are some others, too, where IMHO he is overplaying...

Well, may be this is because I have to compare him with EW every moment (most of the time they are together on the screen). Mr. Wood is so deep in his role, so completely disappeared in Frodo's character, that near him Sean's acting often looks... well, "acting"! Bright, good and emotional, but just acting. Very often I see at the screen Mr. Austin, playing Sam, but not Sam himself. For me this is the most "Oscars for acting" type of performance in ROTK.:rolleyes:

Fortunately (...) other personal differences ARE being celebrated in recent decades....
serena, I have to admit that I'm from more traditional society, so for me celebration of some of those "personal differences" is not acceptable and never will be.:eek:

finally somone who thinks the same about
seans acting!! i have thought many times about it but dident realy know how to put it so i dident step on somebodyesfoot.
thanks Rikka!!!

i was writing about it long ago when we discust the oscars
(i think it was) he is acting god in some parts but in others
his just overplay. He almost look silly to me.I have never seen
Elijah overplay (never) he knows exacly how far he can go!!!

that is too me VERY GOD ACTING!!!!!!!!!


:k :k :k :k

//This is where I appear in my recurring role of Sean Astin apologist--even though I would never, ever even think of putting his acting on the same level as Elijah's!//

To be fair to Sean (and the Goonies among us :) ), IMVHO much of his "overacting" came from PJ and possibly the other writers deciding that Sam's character arc would turn him into a more traditional hero-type character. If you look at Sam back in FotR, he's quite different, and IMHO he's not overacted there. In TTT he begins to "assert himself," and in RotK he's basically an "action hero." Some of the camera shots used are almost cliches of that (both times that he comes to save the day--well, to save Frodo, anyway ;) --the first thing we see isn't him but Sting; those shots always makes me think of a traditional Western where you see the hero's gun before you see the hero).

There are a number of things I'd like to change regarding how Sam comes across in RotK, but IMHO they're basically writing and directing decisions, and Sean's acting fits the type of character they wanted Sam to be. I dunno, maybe they thought they needed to throw in an obvious hero-type for those in the audience who don't "get" any other kind. :rolleyes:

Of course (IMHO), being with the master of subtlety in almost every scene he plays is just going to make Sean's obvious heroics even more obvious. But I think the idea was to have the two extremes balance each other, especially after we get to Mordor. Some time ago, even before TTT, IIRC, Elijah said in an interview that at some point Frodo becomes so "strange" that the audience will identify with Sam instead. Those of us who appreciate unsung, internally suffering heroes would never think of such a thing :eek: , but I've read some reviews where the reviewer had exactly that reaction.

And in the later scenes toward the end of RotK--at least from The End of All Things to "Well, I'm back," I feel that the Sam I've known and loved for years is back on screen. Of course, after the Ring's destroyed there's no longer any need for an action hero :rolleyes: .

tg,
I'm not sure the matter here is only in directing. Yeah, you are right, PJ in ROTK try to make Sam a traditional " action hero". But the situations when the actor "drops out" of the character - this is not directing, this is a pure problem of acting.

IMHO, Austin is not the strongest actor in the cast. His abilities are limited enough. But in FOTR and TTT he was OK for me. There his acting tasks were not so difficult as in ROTK. But in the 3d movie both of them - he and Wood - had "to jump over their heads", as we use to say in my language. :) From my point of view, Wood simply is stronger as an actor, and he had enough in him to complete this task successfuly. But Austin has no Wood's reserves, he had to work absolutely at his limits - and from time to time he failed a bit.

For me his worst moments are 1) when he finds bits of lembas on the stairs and crash it in his hand - IMHO, pure overacting. And 2) at the slopes of Mount Doom. I know that many spectatours are in ecstasy about this moment, but not me. Well, I like very much how Austin begins this scene (about the Shire and strawberries with cream) and cry there. But I definetely don't like how he delievers Sam's hit line " I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you" (pardon, that the quote is not correct). Every time here Mr. Austin pushes me out of the MiddleEarth. For me this IS also a pure example of overacting. He's out of the role in this moment. For me this is not Sam, but actor Mr. Austin who shows everybody how greately he can play Sam. :)

There is one more moment in Austin's acting in ROTK that I definetely don't like. This is his delivering of the very last line "Well, I'm back". IMHO, there is no overacting here, but an opposite problem. He... sorry, I don't know a correct English expression... he didn't haul up here; If he was brave enough to play strong and pure love in GH, he had to play it to the end. To make a finish point in their relations by this line.. EW managed to do it even with his voiceover. But Sam's line sounds emply for me. It should close the movie, but I don't feel really deep emotion in it.

P.S. Congratulations to Achila with her 100th post!

Hey, it's my 100th post! (thanks, Rikka, and congrats to you too!)


Originally posted by tgshaw
Some of the camera shots used are almost cliches of that (both times that he comes to save the day--well, to save Frodo, anyway ;) --the first thing we see isn't him but Sting; those shots always makes me think of a traditional Western where you see the hero's gun before you see the hero).


BTW, those of you who are "Heavenly Creatures" fans will recognize that shot -- the exact same thing is shown as a fantasy inside the psychiatrist's office. Apparently, that is a "Pete shot". You find that with some directors.


Of course (IMHO), being with the master of subtlety in almost every scene he plays is just going to make Sean's obvious heroics even more obvious. But I think the idea was to have the two extremes balance each other, especially after we get to Mordor.


Another issue besides Sean's acting, I think, is the accent. What he has to do -- think Robbie Coltrane in Harry Potter for the ideal -- is very difficult, and sometimes it's not quite there. It just happens to be a hard accent to do, I'm told. Elijah, on the other hand, has a smoother, more "generic" English accent, which he pulls off so naturally and beautifully that you'd swear he IS English (and as we've said other times, he's fooled natives into thinking he is). So again, when they're side by side, you're making that comparison.

To tell the truth, of all the principal cast members, Sean has always been the one that has not exactly worked for me. I've never been able to put my finger on why though.


Glad that you guys liked Molly Nova's site -- isn't that pic of Baby Lij with the bass cute?!

tg!i can agree with you that it is (maybe) the caracter that makes him
play that way, and maybe it is becuse i only seen rudy with sean
and have seen almost all elijahs movie and seen the difrent caracter he has playes.thats maybe why i think elijah have a better and anothe stil i mean he hade made so many diffrent rolls
and i havent seen sean in more then one so i cnat realy commpere the two of them and i wont even if i could becuse that much i have seen they are very very diffrent!!!!!!!


and he is so much more god looking
pure beuty angelice face(now more maskuline sexier)
wops better stop right now!!
:D :D

i am not saying that sean is a bad actor,just that i have a feeling that he is overplaying some parts and for that maybe fore those only see HERE I AM overseen better acting which fore me is
when they turn complitli in there caracter like Elijah he realy
become frodo thats acting!!

Very interesting discussion about Elijah's acting versus Sean's. I have heard similar opinions before.

I have to say that it doesn't bother me. In general I find Sean's Sam a good foil to Elijah's Frodo. :)

If I have a problem at all with the films, it is NOT with Elijah's acting style as Frodo or Sean's acting style as Sam ... I am sometimes critical of the decisions taken in the writing of the characters of Frodo and Sam, and PJ's style of directing the actors in those roles (much as I adore, worship and love our favourite cuddly Kiwi. :p)

I tolerate the Frodo telling Sam to go away scene. I don't hate it, but I would much, MUCH rather PJ had stuck to canon.

I think I am only able to forgive the heresy simply because PJ then gives us Frodo alone in Shelob's Lair, which is a terrific sequence. :)

Hi colleagues! I'm coming up for air after a deep dive into RL!

It is wonderful to see the nice things being said about EW’s performance in The Yank/Hooligans. Like others I wondered what TedC meant by the reference to Brad Pitt and the set of Mr and Mrs Smith, so I did a little digging through Ted’s archive. The reference seems to be to this little snippet about another film set having difficulties:


"The set is in dire straights," confessed a vet from behind the whirring 20th Century Fox cameras. My snoops say the higher-ups, particularly the execs and the creative cats, ain't exactly seeing eye to eye. “The crew is unhappy, and the only person who can rally the troops is Brad," pooped a very in-the-know Smithite.”


So apparently, the point is, as some of you divined, that Elwood is the grown-up on the set! :p I know this is the director's first film, is it also the screenwriter's? The numerous photos coming out from the set are whetting my appetite for seeing a film I would otherwise not see in a million years....

But I am enthralled by "Everything is Illuminated." I've read some reviews of the book which complained about various plot and character elements, and it is hardly perfect (or perfectly original), but it is a wonderfully told story about interesting characters trying to survive in periods of extremes. The little snippet of the screenplay posted above was almost word for word from the book, which is a very encouraging sign. The book is constructed in such a way that you get to know the characters slowly, and it is slightly confusing, so I decided to re-read it :) and it holds together very well on a second reading. That is another very good sign.

I must admit that the casting of Jonathan Schwartzman seemed like a good fit to me, but the film may well be more authentic with a cast from the Ukraine. Please Eru, let EW play Safran as well as Jonathan.

Sorry, I can't contribute to the conversation about Sean Astin's performance. My attention is always focused elsewhere. ;)

find another beutiful pic i love to see when
he is lauging dont you??!!

tonight i am going to see chain of fools on tv i have see the beginning,the middel and the end, but this time iam going to see
the hole film in one pice!!:D :D :D

Originally posted by wood
find another beutiful pic i love to see when
he is lauging dont you??!!
Absolutely--I love those happy pics from Oscar night!. I haven't seen that particular one before--thanks :) .

tonight i am going to see chain of fools on tv i have see the beginning,the middel and the end, but this time iam going to see
the hole film in one pice!!:D :D :D
That's great--enjoy! As far as I know, it's never been on TV here, but IIRC your country was also the only place where it actually showed in theaters.

peaceweaver--Dougie Brimson (sp?) has written several novels. I think one of his stories is being made into a short film (The Crew?), but this is the first full-length film being made from one of his books. He was working on the script, but I don't know if he was the only one writing it, or if some other screenwriter(s) worked with him. If he's working alone, yep, it'd be his first movie script--which is a lot different from writing a novel--and I'd guess he's also rather protective of his novel (most authors would be). Seems the actors may be the most experienced people on the set--and Elijah most experienced of all. They're probably glad to have him around for a number of reasons!

Edited: Couldn't resist this:

Originally posted by honeyelf
The line that seemed to get the most humorous reaction, though, was Sam's at "the end of all things," when he says: " Rosie Cotton dancin'! She had ribbons in her hair!" I thought that was pretty weird!

A friend and I went to the Uptown (BIG BIG SCREEN!) in DC to see RotK. We'd both read and giggled over the Hand Puppet Theatre rendition of LotR. At certain points in the movie, we'd look at each other and stifle giggles. One was when Pippen was in the grasp of the Palantir: "Super-glued myself to a flaming bowling ball" was the line. The other was at the end of Pippen's song: "Awwwww, he made the hobbit cry!" I'm still giggling.


Maybe they'd been reading the "Return of the Pants" thread . It's made me lose my concentration at that point (and a few others ) on occasion.

e: Sean/Sam vs. Elijah/Frodo:

Both actors did what was appropriate for the role. A lot of Frodo's journey took place inside of him. It would have been silly for Elijah to play Frodo with a lot of external emotion (other than tears)(Lots of tears) ::: sniffle :::. The few times when Frodo did explode - such as Osgiliath - were all the more powerful because of Frodo's usual reserve. His collapse on Mt. Doom was all the more effective because it was a rare external display of what was inside of Frodo - which was precious little at that point. Frodo was like a duck: calm and serene on top and paddling like the devil underneath ;) .

Sam wore his heart on his sleeve. His feelings were right out there where everyone could see them. He was that way in the book. I think that Sean was perfect to play Sam. External Sam and Internal Sam were pretty much the same. PJ didn't have to do a lot of closeups of Sean to show the "windows of the soul"; Sam was evident in every expression and movement.

A good example of the difference is the riverbank scene at the end of FotR. Frodo stood quietly on the bank, tears running down his face, then scrinched up his cute little chin and neatly pushed the boat into the water and hopped in. Quiet, reserved, decisive action.

Then Sam came thundering out of the woods - nothing quiet or reserved about him! He was yelling, running, pots and pans banging, and plowed right into the water like a landing craft. :)

That scene is one of my favorite illustrations of how the two complemented each other. Frodo was about to set off, alone, on a journey that he had little or no chance of completing. Sam forced him into a position where he *had* to accept Sam's help. It wasn't planned or given deep thought on Sam's part - he was just keeping a promise made to Gandalf. And, as Frodo himself said, "Frodo wouldn't have got far without Sam".

When it worked the other way, when Sam's actions forced Frodo to take action - such as getting between him and Gollum, it took strength that Frodo simply didn't have, and as someone here said once, was possibly the reason why movieFrodo had to send Sam away - not because of the lembas, but because Sam nearly killed Gollum.

The characters are different; the actors are different, and I'm as impressed with Sean as I am with Elijah.

I'm still absolutely blown away by those movies.

Rikka and others - thanks for the pictures! Oh, my!

Re: Political Correctness etc:

Reading other responses, and thinking about it a lot overnight, I think I understand what it is that bothers me.

There are characteristics that are heriditary, and are often grouped in a certain geographical area, and characteristics that are culture-dependent. Certain physical characteristics may be more likely to turn up in certain areas of the world, like redheads in Ireland or dark straight hair and dark skin in parts of India, and Asian facial features, blondes in Scandinavian countries, Slavic features in Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union countries, short round dumplings (like me :D) where my family hails from in Germany. People who came to the US over the centuries usually settled in areas where people of the same culture and/or language lived, so we continued to have areas of people with physical, inherited characteristics from that part of the world - lots of blondes in the midwest, a lot of short round people of German descent in Eastern Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Upstate New York, areas in cities that have retained Italian, Hispanic, Asian and other cultures. The main reason for the grouping, though, is not physical characteristic - it's cultural and language.

Someone gave the definition of "Jewish" - of Hebrew descent, or someone who practices the Jewish faith. Looking at people from the Middle East, I can't tell, except by cultural indications, whether a dark-haired person who looks Middle Eastern is Jewish, Islamic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Christian. I may be able to tell if a person is Japanese, Chinese, or Vietnamese because people with similar physical characteristics (face shape, hair color, etc) tend to live in the same geographical area. But I can't tell, unless he's wearing a saffron robe or a priest's frock or some other indication, what religion he practices. If I see a man wearing a head-covering indoors or I see a prayer shawl sticking out from under his shirt, it's a pretty good guess that he's Jewish. A woman veiled from head to foot is probably Muslim. A man with a turban may be Hindu. That's all cultural, though. It's not heriditary. Maybe it's the part of the world I live in, but I think it's getting very difficult to identify a person's religion by his hair color or the size of his nose, or whatever other stereotypical physical features that are pegged as "Jewish".

It's interesting, though, to see what others have to say about it. There's a great deal of cultural diversity in my country, and our laws try to reflect that. We certainly don't always succeed, but it's better than it used to be.

'nuff said by me. :)

~grumpy

Apropos of the discussion comparing Elijah and Sean's acting styles: Alyon (whom I missing right now (((Alyon)))) asked me the other day why I was so fixated on, um.....Frodo when my fave book character is Sam.

There are really two reasons for this. ZK speaks for me as well when she says:
Sam wore his heart on his sleeve. His feelings were right out there where everyone could see them. He was that way in the book. I think that Sean was perfect to play Sam. External Sam and Internal Sam were pretty much the same.

That's also the way that Frodo chose to write about Sam (if you "play along" that Frodo wrote the Red Book.) He made Sam the hero, partly for Sam, and partly to keep the darker things from Sam. Like what the Ring really did to him, etc....(In which case, this was a quiet and lovely act of devotion for his Sam, his dear friend.)

So in the Tower of Cirith Ungol we are told what book!Sam is feeling, but not what Frodo is feeling. We have to almost put ourselves in Frodo's skin to realize that he believed the Ring was already influencing Middle Earth (the battle sounds as the orcs fight among themselves would be evidence,) and expecting to die soon.

But Frodo became my favorite film character, because Elijah's amazing performance did just that; it allowed me insights into what Frodo was thinking. That scene on the Anduin was what made me sit up and take notice (admittedly belatedly.) I understood Frodo in those moments, and suddenly his journey mattered to me.

I think Sean and Elijah both played their parts very well, and their different styles suited their characters perfectly. But Elijah's Frodo touched my heart in a way no other film character has ever managed to do.

Congrats Rikka and Achila on your first 100's!

Got my Starburst intact and in all it's glory! Yay!

Honey!

Zk-The other was at the end of Pippen's song: "Awwwww, he made the hobbit cry!" I'm still giggling.No way! Tears stream from my eyes every time that song ends - it's one of the most moving non-cannon segments of the all 3 movies, imho (along with the lighting of the beacons across the ME/NZ Alps). And you laughed!!! :eek:
(Not like I don't chuckle myself at Frodo's 'Now that I'm here...' which Elijah does exquisitely :) ).

hallo laydys!!!!

i saw the hole movie chain of fools yesterday!
and it was realy good Elijah did a great job as the hitman!!
and it has some fun points to.
the only things now that i havent seen with elijah is
witness
avolone
paradise
the god son
black and white
i dont think i misst anything
this witness what is it a movie or tv approch?

tg its on satalitte tv 1000 its viasat i dont know if you heard of it?
am i writing to much have i Elijah on my head all the time or
am i freaking out??????

honeyelf said: Apropos of the discussion comparing Elijah and Sean's acting styles...
In fact, there were not the acting styles of Sean and Elijah I tried to discuss, but their acting abilities and qualities.
I'm agree with all of you who said that Mr. Austin was a good and proper choice for this role and he's very "samish" Sam, that he should be open in his emotions because in the book Sam also wore his heart on his sleeve...

But in fact, saying all this you are speaking about conception of the role, Astin's interpretation of Sam's character. I have nothing against his interpretation of Sam - I accepted it.

I spoke about a technique quality of it's implementation . If you are an artist drawing a picture, you can choose a right color of a paint for your stroke, but to take too many of it on your paintbrush... and this excess of the paint even of a right (!) color will damage the stroke... If you follow me. The same is with acting - when an actor doesn't feel the limit where he has to stop in outbursting his emotions (which are actor's paints), than he overdoes the line... I believe that Mr. Astin does it not once in ROTK.

And Mr. Wood never overdoes any of his lines or acting moments in the 3d movie, while his role is terribly difficult.

IMHO, the only moment when EW in ROTK is close to overdoing is just after Shelob bites Frodo - some very long seconds before he falls on the ground. For me EW develops this scene (I mean a facial expression) too naturalistically - he crosses the point when a movie art disappears and begins"a documentary film" for students of medical high school : "About physiological consequences and clinical tags of toxicant insects stings". :D But partially I assign a responsibility for it on PJ. This is also a director's overdoing. PJ loves such "horror movies" stuff too much.

But in TTT there is a line in EW's acting which delivering I don't like. This is Frodo's "Why? When?" in response on Faramir's question about Boromir's death. It's not overdone, but a bit "empty", muffled on sense. Normally EW acts so expressively than on every of his line I understand what's going in Frodo's head and soul, why he says this... But not that time. I didn't understand exactly Frodo's reaction - what was behind this outburst. Well, I know what Frodo should feel and think at this moment - because I've read the book. But this is not correct - I should understand the same from EW's delivering the line... But I don't. IMHO, this is the fail in acting, so I think that EW definitely could do this line (and mimics) better.

zkgrumpy said: The other was at the end of Pippin's song: "Awwwww, he made the hobbit cry!" I'm still giggling.
Woow, zk, you are able to giggle at this moment?:confused: :eek: I can only weep here...

Do I giggle in any inappropriate place in ROTK? Well... At any moments with the army of dead - especially when the green wave floods Pelennor and Minas Tirith I'm giggling - can't stop recalling an advertising of a toilet cleaner Domestos Gel - the same nice green color. :D

wood,
thanks for the pic from Oscar ceremony and others. :k They are lovely!

EDIT. I deleted my answer to zkgrumpy's Political Correctness remark for not to choke up the discussion by the off-topic theme.

Edit: Thanks for answering my King of the Hill worry in your following post, Achila--so I've deleted it :) .

Originally posted by honeyelf
But Frodo became my favorite film character, because Elijah's amazing performance did just that; it allowed me insights into what Frodo was thinking...
Honey--We seem to have come to the same place from opposite directions :) ! Although I love Sam, Frodo's always been my "main hobbit," I think in large part because he's harder to get to know. In the book, I personally related more to introvert Frodo than I did to extravert Sam, and I enjoyed picking up the clues hidden in the text that said something about him. (I shouldn't have put that in past tense, of course--I'm still picking up insights into most of the characters.)

It wasn't until the movie's Black Gate--actually not until there was some discussion about the Black Gate--that I was able to put words to what I was getting from movie-Frodo. Some people thought Frodo didn't seem strong enough there, that he was too uncertain and indecisive about whether to give up on the Gate and follow Gollum's other way.

I found myself thinking, "But that's how he would have felt!" It was the first time he had to make a choice that lay outside what Gandalf or Aragorn had been able to tell him, so the first time he had to rely completely on his own decision. That last painful look at the Black Gate before he turns away from his known path and puts himself (and Sam and the Ring) into Gollum's hands is perfect. It's one of those moments when Frodo does what he has to do to keep the quest alive. Even though he doesn't know if Gollum's other way is going to work, he knows he can't get through the Gate, so there's no other option.

It was "But that's how he would have felt!" that turned on the little light bulb above my head (finally :p ). I realized that a lot of what movie-Frodo does for me is show me the "inner Frodo"--what book-Frodo would have been feeling even if it was something he wouldn't have shown outwardly. Although book-Frodo would have tried to keep his uncertainty under wraps in front of Sam and Gollum (and would have been pretty good at doing that!), IMHO he felt it as much as movie-Frodo did.

I'd been expecting Elijah's talent for showing what's happening inside an internally-directed character to do good things for his portrayal of Frodo, but the reality went far beyond what I'd been expecting--so far beyond, I think, that it took me awhile to realize just what I was getting from it (that's my story, and I'm sticking to it ;) ).

It's not just at the Black Gate that I see that dynamic happening, but it was the Black Gate that let me understand what I was seeing at other points in the movies. In some places it's an emotion I'd already "figured out" that book-Frodo is feeling, but actually seeing it on Frodo's face (and, yes, that is Frodo's face!) gives it a whole new dimension. And there are even times when movie-Frodo's reaction helps me see something that of course Frodo would be feeling in the book, but I hadn't realized it. When Elijah was cast, I'd hoped he'd give me "Frodo as I always knew him," but I hadn't expected the gift his performance actually gave me. He's not exactly Frodo as I've always known him, but he helps me understand the Frodo I've always known and loved better than I did. And that's an incredible, incredible gift.

-------------

Whew! Back to earth for a bit. :p ...wood, The Witness is a "short"--a film that's only about 15 minutes long. I think a few people here have it saved on their computers. It's also on the VCD "Perverse Destiny III" (yes, quite a title!) that's sold at yesasia.com. VCDs aren't limited by "region" like VHS and DVD is, so should play on just about any DVD player. There's very, very little speaking in the film, and what's there is in German (with, IIRC, English and Chinese subtitles).

BTW, from your list of movies you haven't seen yet, the one I would most suggest you see is Avalon. Elijah's very young in it. In fact, it's the first "theater movie" in which he has a big role. But even at that age you can see how much talent and potential he has. And, besides, it's really an overall good movie :) . Well worth keeping your eyes open for, IMHO.

(And, yes, that posting problem happens to me occasionally. I've ended up with the same post up two or three times in a row because the site doesn't tell me that it's published correctly so I try again--then I just try to sneak in and delete the "extras" before anyone sees them :p . I think it's just something that happens when the site/internet is running slow.)

---------

/Off topic/ [Then if more discussion's needed maybe it could go to PMs or another forum??]

Rikka, some people do, actually, convert to Judaism, so there are religious Jews who aren't ethnic Jews, as well as vice versa. That's one reason that when the OED definition was first posted, I mentioned that I hoped it made the point that one of the definitions could apply to a person even if the other doesn't.

IMHO, your last post just emphasizes again the differences between your long-established culture and that in the U.S. (and at least somewhat, I'm guessing, in some of the Western European countries). So I think any disagreement isn't so much a difference of opinion as it is the fact that we just live in different situations. A bit of an oxymoron coming up :p , but I think it's safe to say that in the U.S. it's not "safe" to assume anything about someone by his or her phenotype. (Gee, I feel like I'm at work :p writing about "phenotypic and genotypic heterogeneity.")

Some reasons for that situation in the U.S. are-- 1. We're a young country (slightly more than 200 years on the East Coast, about 125 years where I live), so there aren't long-established cultural traditions. 2. The population is made up, literally, of people from all over the world (and their descendants). Even saying "ethnically Jewish" isn't an identification because we not only have Ashkenazim, but also Sephardim and [:o aargh--can't think of the third--from Asia], and of course members of each group look completely different from each other. 3. The demographics are constantly changing as more groups arrive, and Americans tend to move around a lot rather than stay in one geographic area, so we "mingle" a lot. 4. In most areas of the country, marriage between people of different ethnic groups or even different races doesn't raise an eyebrow (it's difficult to tell from their--beautiful :) --phenotypes which "ethnic group" my 50% European-American*/25% African-American/25% Asian-American niece and nephew belong to, and they're not an unusual case). 5. Specifically regarding religion, it's a very personal decision here, not something that's passed from one generation to another. I've known fully-practicing Buddhists whose parents are 100% European-American and Protestant. Both of my parents were European-American and Catholic (although my paternal grandfather was Protestant). Out of their six offspring, two are Catholic, one is "in flux", one is Methodist, one is Unitarian, and one is B'hai. Don't even ask about the grandchildren!!

[*Afterthought--the European 50%, of course, contains at least 4 different ethnicities. That's so normal, I didn't even think to mention it. Americans who are "pure" members of one ethnic group do exist, but they're unusual except among new arrivals.]

So, in the United States, saying that you can't assume anything about people by their phenotype is just a plain statement of fact. That's not to say it might not work quite well in other places. But here--there's just no way! IMHO, it's really more of a practical matter than a matter of opinion.

I hope that clarifies some of the reasons we might look at things differently, but it's hard for me to know because I'm so used to the way things are here. If it's still not clear, maybe you could PM me--or someone who's posted something here that's made sense to you :confused: . (If the discussion goes on much longer, it'll probably get sent to Rivendell. [Hi, Narya :) ;) .])

Just a quickie -- King of the Hill is on tomorrow night, tg, so no, you haven't missed it. And then there's this little cute tidbit about The Yank filming:


Elijah Wood absorbs underground experience
[from Contact Music]

Elijah Wood has taken the method acting experience a step too far - he decided to take the London Underground in preparation for filming a scene in his new film and ended up arriving late on set.

The Lord of the Rings star decided to take the Underground to London's East Finchley tube station last Sunday for a scene being filmed for The Yank - when he experienced the well-documented delays regularly incurred by commuters.

A source says, "He decided to absorb the atmosphere of the Underground but got more of a realistic experience than he bargained for.

"There was a points failure and he arrived nearly an hour late."


Published April 23, 2004

thanks tg about the movies!
are there some were on the intrnet i can download the witness?
and i just have to agree what you sade about bookfrodo and moviefrodo and the way Elijah brings him to life its amasing
acting i dont think there is any actor that could have done that!!!!!:k :k :D :D

oh poor baby!! ihope he dident get in any trubbel when he
got too the set!!!!:( :( :(

Thanks for the King of the Hill info, Achila. I thought I remembered that it was scheduled for April and got a bit panicked when I realized that April's just about over!

Yes, cute story about the Underground :) . Not surprising, really, since he rode the subway as regular transportation when he lived in New York. But getting to set an hour late will probably break him of the habit for now. But, no, I don't think he'll get in any trouble for it, wood--now if he'd do it every day... ;) but I don't think that will happen.

And, wood, I bought the VCD at yesasia.com, but I think there are two or three people here who might know another way for you to get The Witness. ;)

from wood
i dont think there is any actor that could have done that!!!!!
My feelings exactly!! :cool:


And, speaking of strange posting happenings--I just had two copies of the same post on either side of Achila's :confused: . Seems to be straightened out now.

Like Honeyelf, the first time I've read the book...my heart belonged to Sam. Not that I didn't adore the other characters of course and Frodo was always close to my heart but...I saw the book through the eyes of Sam.
Maybe it's because he's more an external type that - for me - he was easier to understand and/or relate to.
Everytime I saw Frodo in agony, pain,...I didn't directly relate to him. His pain was not really my pain. No, I felt the burden indirectly, through the eyes of a close friend - like Sam.
Maybe it's also because I'm a bit older, a bit more experienced in life and better capable of understanding the more internal Frodo?

But....like I said before...I don't know how Elijah did it but he made me switch focus. Something clicked inside my brain, like an "A-Ha Erlebnis"(a-ha experience). Throughout the trilogy, Elijah's Frodo had me mesmerised.
Even in the latter part of the film (ROTK), my focus remains on Frodo...whilst still admiring Sam a lot for being such a devoted friend.
Elijah Wood gave me a better understanding of one of the extra dimentions of the book.
(of course, Frodo is not only Elijah's accomplishment...special mention also to Peter Jackson, because he worked closely with Elijah to give us this amazing Frodo).

In The War, he plays a more external role. A very extrovert character...and yet again, to me...the best scenes in that movie were the scenes when he has to portray the fury, the unjustice, the pain of seeing his dad post-war and losing his dad at such a young age. He does that without overdoing it, a temptation a lot of actors fall for. He truelly knows exactly to get the balance right.

Sean Astin as Sam. I may have a slight problem with a scene here and there but that's only normal in a trilogy that lasts more than 9 hours. I'm not a big expert on "acting" so...as just another film viewer, I appreciate Sean Astin's Sam a lot.:)
Sean is not as subtle as Elijah in the trilogy but that's just right for the movie, in my opinion.


By the way, I read this on the TORN message board:
(it's about Sin City)
His role is Kevin, a young innocent looking guy that is a mute and a cannibal, he and Mickey Rourke will have at least one scene together. A good one it should be. Yes, most of the actors will have cameos most likely
...
in "Sin City" which is one of the three story threads (the main one) with Marv, played by Mickey Rourke. Kevin is probably the scariest, creepiest, eeriest and most dangerous villain in all of Sin City. It's a character that will really get him a lot of fans if he plays it right.
Some people have mentionned on that thread that they're a bit anxious to see Elijah Wood portray darker roles but it's exciting to me. I love comics (although the American comics are different than ours) so this Sin City makes me curious.


ETA: on the TORN site, you can see a couple of clips from King of the Hill (which is great for us who can't see the episode)

moondancer!!that on sin city sounds very interesting!!
i wonder what it will be to see him acting like a cannibal?
and the crepiest and scariest??umh!!i think he can do that one too
just now i think he can do anything!!!!:D :D :D

Oh, that is EXCELLENT news, Moondancer! Bye bye, Frodo, for sure! And playing a mute will be just wonderful for him, with his expressive face and eyes! Oh, I'm doing the Happy Dance today!

Originally posted by Achila
And playing a mute will be just wonderful for him, with his expressive face and eyes!
:D That was my very first thought, even before thinking about the "villain" part of it! Another "silent movie" role? :D

And that combination of "innocent looking" and "most dangerous" is perfect for him :cool: :cool: . Also glad to read that he's in the main story thread--at least that's how I understood it (right?). Even though the three stories will limit his screentime some, it sounds as if his character will be very *ahem* noticeable :p .

icant find this messengerboard
i find torn but not the mesengerboard:confused: :confused:

what is anoxia????

i found this one!!
Q:Are you religious or spiritual in any way?
Lij: "Yeah, probably more spiritual than reilgious, I'm not a huge believer in or supporter of organised religion. It's run by people, and people tend to tarnish the purity of what religion is about. I was raised a Christian, I believe in the Bible and that's a good thing - I believe more in a personal relationship with God than having to go through priests. I believe in prayer, yes, and that it is listened to. I do believe my life has been blessed so much during my 20 years, i can’t believe that there’s not someone looking out for me."

Q:And how about if you had not been so blessed? Wouldn't you change your tune?
Lij: People have free will. They have a choice to lead the lives they have. There are people who are unlucky or born into challenging lives, but everyone has the choice and the power to move themselves out of a difficult position."

Just dropped back in to say that I remembered another place I've heard laughter during RotK: When Bilbo asks, "What became of that old ring of mine?" But I've only heard laughter there once and it was very brief--seemed like more of a reaction out of surprise than someone thinking "Boy, that's really funny." It can come across as humorous, I think, especially if you're not prepared for it. But Frolijah's reaction to it is so perfect that I think whoever laughed got the point right away.

((((Faculty))))

RL has kept me busy lately but I jumped back in here to say hi . Re HoneyElf's comments (((((Honey!)))) about falling in love with movie Frodo. I always was attracted to Frodo the most because I enjoy imagining internal struggle. There is something sublime about Frodo's internal resistence that only he in the whole world was subject to. And yet it is true that we are removed from it, seeing from Sam's eyes without really knowing what Frodo is specifically seeing or struggling with from moment to moment. regarding the movie...Even though I am one of those people who wished for PJ to make some other choices for Frodo, my objections are totally dwarfed by my gratitude for the exquisitness of Elijah's performance. The fact that he could BE Frodo so well, and embody a certain magic and suggest such soul is better than if every other choice I quibble about were made just right, but the actor couldn't BE Frodo so well. I love book Frodo -- his is the story, the character---but then film Frodo lights up the character. We see in front of us the human(hobbit) and the sublime. I'm reading the books again and am amazed at how much I "forgot" for seeing the movie so much. I can't help but wish some of the changes hadn't been made. AND YET, I remember that each time I saw the movies for the first time I wasn't disappointed. I was swept away by the appropriate magic. The scenic visuals, the many characterizations that I think the filmmaker brought to life in better ways than I could visualize. And the best is Frodo, who Elijah makes captivating, as he should be. Without that, you might have a good movie, but would we be drawn into middle earth? And want to go back again and again (to the movie middle earth?). And not just because we like to look at Frodo, but because all of his suffering, all the the import of the story, all of the love and loyalty the triumph and the tragedy takes on an element of reality and truth that we recognize as authentic drama.

Whatever I started to say, I dont' know if I got there. Book Frodo and Movie Frodo ---put em together and we have some sort of explosive reaction resulting in.... (imagine a cape and a frodo able to leap tall buildings at a single bound). Sorry, getting tired and silly. But hello everyone. Thanks for all the pics of the Yank, and the tidbits of info.

regarding Frodo at the entrance of Shelob's cave. I think it is so touching and a bit wry--I want to cry and smile at the same time. I think it is a brilliant bit.

godmorning girls!!:) :)

ragarding the discusion about bookfrodo and moviefrodo

bookfrodo has always been my favoritcaracter in the trilogi
but i have to say that it was when i saw Elijah on big screen
bringing him to life i realy fall in love with him both frodo but
espacily elijah this blue eyes and handsome face i just
couldent help it!!:D :D

i know we hade this discusion before but i think it cant be
sade to many times!!:p :p

i saw bumbelbee flyes this night when the rest of the family were at sleep and i must say i love that movie!!:cool:

i have not jet any serius discution to come up with it is to
early jet!!:rolleyes:

i think you all know by now what i think about Elijah and his acting
(he is so hot, sexy,handsome,maskulin)its hard to think what will
become of him!!:rolleyes: :eek:

did i say it whas to early?? i must still be at sleep and dreaming:D :D
i dont think any of you should start the day discustion this way or would you??:p :p

are you up fore some blue eyes??well it will be a glouries day when i can put them in,it dident work right now!!sorry!!

Wood, that picture.....o.....sweet.....Elbereth.....words are useless to describe such pure beauty in a human face. *sigh*

here is onotherone!!!

enjoy the beuty!!!!:D :D :cool:

there is some new yankpics on the you know wich link!!!

Wood, you do need to learn how to edit your posts so you can stop double posting. :) :k

If you try to put a picture in and it didn't work, then open up your previous post using the 'edit' button at the bottom of it, and copy what you just said. (To copy, hold down the Control key on your keyboard and press 'c' on the keyboard.) Then check the delete box at the top left hand side of the post AND at the top right hand side of the post. This will delete the post that didn't work, but save what you wrote so you don't have to re-write it.

Then you're ready to re-do your post. Open a new 'reply to' window, hold down the Control key on your keyboard, and press 'v' . This will 'paste' your previous comments into the window, and then you can give another try at attaching the picture.

Also, I want to remind people that the Faculty is primarily a non-swooning area for Elijah discussion. The Elijah's Hugs Haven was specifically set up for more swoony Elijah discussion, and if pictures are being posted only because they are so beautiful, then that's where they belong.

originally posted by tgshaw
(If the discussion goes on much longer, it'll probably get sent to Rivendell. [Hi, Narya .])

Hi, tg! :D Yes, I was just about to suggest it - because there is already a thread in the void in Rivendell about exactly what everyone was talking about, IIRC. I let it go on here for a bit because it originated in a discussion about Elijah and managed to get back to him once in a while :p , but it kept going off on a tangent. Basically, if a side-discussion goes on for more than a page or so, it's time to consider setting up a separate thread for it.

(((Faculty)))

SORRY FROM NOW ONE I WILL BEHAIVE LIKE A GOD GIRL:D
I WONT DO ANY MORE MISSTAKES I WILL JUST READ
WAT YOU LADYS HAVE WRITTEN UNTIL I LEARND MY LESSEN!!!!!:rolleyes: :( :o :cool:

(((Wood))) You don't need to stop posting, that wasn't what I was saying at all! If you have any problem understanding the instructions I'm giving you for editing your posts, just let me know, and I'll try to make it clearer. I certainly don't want you to stop posting, you're a valuable member here just like everyone else. I'm just trying again to help you learn how to edit your posts. That's all. Why don't you send me a private message (just click on the PM button at the bottom of my post) if there are instructions for editing your posts that you don't understand, and we can talk about it off the thread. Would that be OK?

TG said:
Honey--We seem to have come to the same place from opposite directions
Yup, because I came from the movies to the books, (which I have read twice now) and am only now beginning to pick up some of the subtler moments.

And my hubby drug me to the first movie. I was expecting lots of swords and sorcery and green suns with little reasoning or "real" emotional experience. Wow, was I wrong!

That "Sin City" role sounds amazing! I'm imaging a door opening to reveal an evil little grin similar to the Ring-grin, which we glimpse only for a second. When Kevin realizes we are observing him the smile becomes one of complete, blinding innocence, (maybe a little like that first shot in fotr.)

Guess who grabbed my copy of Starburst to read the Lij interview in bed? MY husband! Lij in his lovely fauxhawk seemed to be looking at me (who was under the blankets up to her nose) with a slight ironic smirk! :rolleyes: ;) :D

Everything is Illuminated stuff

I saw a Marc Chagall print last night, and thought "Trachimbrod!" I wonder if it was what JFS was visualizing when he wrote those chapters, with all the colors smeared everywhere, and the carts full of butterflies, and carcasses swinging beneath? Wouldn't it be so cool if that was the art direction they came from for Trachimbrod? Am really looking forward to seeing those scenes now! Here's an example (http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Chagal3.html)

Hugs,
Honey!

Dont worrring!! i wont stop posting!!:k :k
thats not what i meant!:)
i will just keep going untill i can it.but it seams like my computer is a littel slow i think the post been editing and when i come back its dubbel post instead!?
and for the pictures i will post them in right forum. i dident now were to put them i thought elijahs pictures seams to pasin
everywere! he is in everybodys heart and soul its hard to find the right place fore it but i have now! no hard feelings ihope
im iger to learn and to share with me thats all!!!!

(but you have to edmitt the pics are beutiful arent they?:D :D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: )

big love and hugs from wood