Women in fantasy: the illusion of self-empowerment

Dear producers, filmmakers, screenwriters and costume designers,

In honor of this march 8th (which happens to be the International Women’s Day) I would like to ask a little change: stop inflicting on the world the tough-independent-don’t need a man-I dress way too sexy-brooding female hero stereotype. This has especially been relevant in the fantasy universes.

Characters like Xena (Warrior Princess), any female character in the Conan series, Sif (Thor), the new Maleficent or, the newcomer, Katniss Everdeen fit into this description. These are generally one-dimensional characters whose main definition is that they are female and “warriors/fighters”. They are usually dressed with way too little clothing (prompting one to wonder what good is an armor for if it barely covers your modesty) and are angry with the world and reject the male gender (a movie like Barb Wire did take this far too literally for its own good). And they are all terribly blend. They are just an idea of a female role model. They are one-dimensional and paper-thin. The problem is that the general consensus is that this is somehow empowering to women.

I do understand the female fantasy of fighting wars just like men (especially because that’s a role that has been traditionally denied to women), but do we need to do it in a tiny, tiny body armor that will show every inch of skin?

Lady Sif from the Thor movies

Xena: Warrior Princess

A character like Eowyn doesn’t need to do it. She fights, kicks ass and is NOT one-dimensional and, most important, does it with a full armor (thanks for that Peter Jackson). Brienne doesn’t need it. Arya doesn’t need it. But sadly these are just exceptions. Most of female fantasy characters are still either the princess or the sexy kick-ass of the story (and whatever the case they will have to look pretty at all times).

It seems like the idea of “girl power” has somehow been translated to: angry and sexy. So, according to the mass media (movies, literature, comics, TV shows…) if you want to be an independent-empowered woman, you have to look sexy and hate the world. And to me, this is just another way of exploitation (movies attempts to gain success by “exploiting” a current trend or a genre or any element that differs from the norm: Blaxploitation, sexploitation…). 

Apparently the image of self-empowerment in the media is still filtered through a basically male conception of “empowerment”: “yes, she’ll be a super kick-ass character. She’ll slaughter trolls in a miniskirt and stilettos!” (this is basically the thought process of 90% of the producers in the industry).

It’s so shameful that in the year 2015 most of the female characters on screen are so one-dimensional. If they are the protagonists then they never develop a personality of their own, sticking to the angry and sexy, and if they are not protagonist, then they are relegated to being the token girl for the hero.

And this is a generalized problem. It happens in all genres. A director like Christopher Nolan (whom I’ll admit is pretty darn good at directing) is still incapable of writing good female characters. Most of the times they turn out to be just a token for the perfectly well-rounded male protagonist. And so, his movies conform a very masculine universe. This is not bad in and on itself. The problem is that the industry seems dominated by this masculine universe, which gives way to a very frustrating phenomenon: if the movie protagonist is a male, then he’ll be a well-rounded character (or at least they will try) and the movie’s target will be both for men and for women. But it the protagonist is female, then she’ll be poorly written and the movie will be entirely targeted at women (yes, I’m looking at you Mamma mia).

I think that this is the core problem. Somehow, female characters never get as polished and well-rounded as male characters. I’m not sure whether this is because in an industry dominated by men most screenwriters can’t write women well or because they think that it’s not necessary.

What feminism (more like women in general) needs is for movies to give us good female characters: multi-layered, complex and well-rounded characters that are more than an illusion of self-empowerment. What’s really self-empowering is seeing female-characters treated as humans. Female characters, just as the male ones, have distinct personalities, strengths and flaws because they are humans as well.

What female characters demand is equality. Equality of treatment. The right to be as flawed and petty as male characters are allowed (for some reason women in movies are not generally pathetic the just have two set-points: either they are demons or angels)

That is what sets apart a writer like George R.R Martin; he is capable of writing female characters that are psychologically complex, interesting and human: Cersei, Brienne, Sansa…. are all very different women and all are treated as unique human beings, both results of their environment and victims of it at the same time.

Brienne of Tarth. A real female warrior

“It’s about treating men and women the same, I regard men and women as all human - yes there are differences, but many of those differences are created by the culture that we live in, whether it's the medieval culture of Westeros, or 21st century western culture.”
[….]
“All of the characters should be flawed; they should all have good and bad, because that's what I see. Yes, it’s fantasy, but the characters still need to be real.”
--George R.R Martin

Unfortunately, characters like Princess Leia, Eowyn, Cersei or Brienne walk the lonely path of the good fantasy female character (made a little less lonely by Mister Martin).

So, today, in this very special day, I ask you (producers, filmmakers, screenwriters and costume designers) to please reconsider this worrying trend in media. Stop thinking about giving us female role models and start empowering female characters the only way you can: by making real human characters.

Maleficent

For the last few years, a rather peculiar trend has infected the movie industry in regards to fantasy movies: the “retelling” of fairy tales. I’m not talking about bringing to the screen our childhood fairy tales like Disney Animation has done for almost a century; I’m talking about retelling this fairy tales as epic stories with the intention of giving them a more adult look and feel. This has been going on for the past two/three years, and it’s starting to bother me.

It started with Tim Burton’s “Alice in wonderland” (2010) and was followed by “Red Riding Hood” (2011). But it really became a “thing” with the simultaneous release of “Mirror Mirror” and “Snow white and the Huntsman” in 2012. The success of these two films gave way to “Jack the Giant Slayer” (2013), “Hansel and Gretel: Witch hunters” (2013), “Oz, the Great and Powerful” (2013), “La bete et la bêlle” (2014) and “Maleficent” (2014). But it doesn’t end there, there are several others in production: “Into the woods” and “Cinderella”. So, unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon.

Many people has told me that this is insignificant and that I should not get so worked up about it because these are kids movies. Well, maybe. But my grievance over them goes beyond the fact that they are not particularly good.

Fairy tales work in a very peculiar way, which is radically different from the narrative mechanisms of high fantasy: simple story lines, childlike logic, archetypical characters… There is, obviously, some common ground for both mediums (fantastical lands, magic,…) but these are not so many as one might think. And so, by trying to turn fairy tales into high fantasy stories, what we are really doing is this Frankenstein monster which isn’t really a fairy tale nor a high fantasy, and ends up ruining both. 

When first I started thinking about talking about this, I thought of doing it through the reviews of both “Snow White and the Huntsman” and “Mirror Mirror”. But then I saw “Maleficent” and changed my mind.

As bad as “Snow White and the Huntsman” was, and as weird as “Mirror Mirror” could get, nothing could reach the level of stupidity of “Maleficent”; a movie that encapsulates everything awful about the “epic retelling” trend and abuses of every topic in the book of storytelling.

“Maleficent” is a retelling of Disney’s animated classic “Sleeping Beauty”, and tries to be an origin story for the main villain: Maleficent.

To understand why this movie is as bad as it is it’s necessary to talk a little about the original Disney classic. “Sleeping beauty” is the 16th animated film released by the Disney Animation Studios. It premiered in 1959 and since then, has become one of the most iconic Disney Animated Movies of all times.

This was a movie that spent almost a whole decade in production: the story work began in 1951, the voices were recorded in 1952, the animation production took from 1953 until 1958 and the score was recorded in 1957. So, as this clearly reveals, it was not a “fast product”. This movie was Disney’s attempt at creating a visual masterpiece. They strived for a certain artistic excellency and tried to create something unique and beautiful. This created a piece of an incredible artistic value: with its richly detailed backgrounds inspired in the Renaissance paintings (interchanging perspective with layering), its strictly horizontal and vertical orientation, and its beautiful score that adapts Tchaikovsky’s music for his ballet version of sleeping beauty.

Empty backgrounds for the movie

All this, coupled with a timeless story and some memorable characters, set a new standard for animation movies.

Amongst this memorable characters, the most memorable of all was, without doubt; Maleficent, the self-proclaimed mistress of all evil. With her fantastic design, her diabolical plans, and her awesome final transformation into a dragon, she has become one of the most iconic Disney villains of all time.

As you can see, the bar was set really high for a “reimagining”. For a long time, this kept the idea of retelling the sleeping beauty story at bay. But for some reason, in the late 2010’s someone thought that retelling the story of Maleficent (not the story of sleeping beauty) would be a good idea.

Maleficent, in the original movie, doesn’t have much of a background or backstory. She is first introduced in the baptism of Aurora, where she curses the baby to die by pricking her finger with a spinning wheel only because she feels slighted. She is basically evil; that’s how she’s described. The enjoyment of this character lies on her coolness: she is evil and has an incredible amount of fun being evil.

So, how do you tell the story of a character who is basically evil? By turning her the “goodie” of the movie, of course (I still can believe that anyone ever thought this could work).

With this movie, they wanted to create a big epic film filled with battles and magic, and with a big “strong-independent-woman” message behind it. And I really don’t think that the story they were “remaking” was the best medium for this.

So, what is the basic story for this “new” sleeping beauty movie? I’ll try and explain briefly.

Maleficent is a fairy (yes, she has wings) from the magical kingdom (the “Moors”) that collides with a human kingdom ruled by a bigoted king who wants to get rid of his magical neighbors. She grows up to be the most powerful and the kindest of her kind and becomes the protector of her kingdom. Because of this, when the human king attacks, she comes to the defense of the Moors and defeats (with the help of other creatures that I’m incapable to name) the humans by mortally wounding the king. In his wrath, the king offers the hand of his daughter and the throne of the kingdom to whomever can kill Maleficent. Stephan, a poor boy who grew up as a friend (and love interest) to Maleficent, corrupted by the promise of power, deceives Maleficent and cuts her wings off. And so, he becomes king. And she, in anger, becomes a “baddie” and crowns herself queen of the Moors. 

When Stephan has her first daughter, she breaks in the christening and curses the child. In response to that, the king decides to send off Aurora with the three good fairies to live in secrecy in the middle of the forest. But the three fairies turn out to be useless and can’t take care of the child properly. Because of this, Maleficent will start looking out for the child from the distance, and will end up creating an affective bond with Aurora. Because of this, she tries to lift up the curse, but she finds herself unable. Therefore she’ll have to find the way to save Aurora and bring back peace between the Moors and the Human Kingdom.

It’s even sillier than it sounds.

This movie has a tone of problems, but the worst part is that these are not only narrative problems; neither story, nor characters, nor visuals really work. Unfortunately, the characters are the ones that end up getting the worst of this deal.

Maleficent, the mistress of all evil, becomes just another spited woman who feels betrayed by a man. Really? Why every time Hollywood tries to give a backstory to an iconic female character ends up with this same story? (let’s not forget the train wreck that was Catwoman) I feel really affronted by this issue: there are a thousand reasons a female can decide to do something bad towards another person. To keep insisting on the “oh my god, a man treated me wrong and now I’m all bitter and evil” thing is insulting to the female population beyond measure. It’s instilling the idea that a woman’s life and character depend entirely on her relationship with men. But the worst of all is that this movie tries to be “empowering” to women. I’m about to be controversial, but mark my words: CERSEI LANNISTER IS A MORE EMPOWERING FEMALE CHARACTER than this. Why? because she is not written as a “female” character, she is written like a “human” character: she has flaws, obsessions, desires and overall characteristics that are indistinct to her gender. And that’s what every female character in fiction should do. That’s it, I had to say it.

The second obvious problem with their take on Maleficent is pretty easy to spot: she’s good now? The movie doesn’t even has the balls to go all out and portray a real villain. If you’re going to do this, what’s the point in focussing in this specific character? 

What makes the original character as epic and memorable is the fact that she is so bad ass and evil; she has so much fun messing with people’s lives that it’s compelling. Her schemes are downright cruel, and that is why she rocks. In the 1959 movie, she doesn’t try to kill the prince, she decides to lock him up until he is old and grey while his love sleeps in an immortal slumber, so when he finally gets the chance to awake her he’ll be too old to have any kind of sexual activity but she’ll be just as young as when he last saw her. That’s twisted. Taking the “evil” out of her is just ruining the fun of the character. Besides, she transformed into a huge dragon, I still can’t believe they skipped this in this remake.

But she is not the only character they messed up. I still don’t understand what they did to our beloved three good fairies. Somehow they’ve been transformed into three bumbling idiots. They are simply useless. Remember the fun upbeat fairies of the animated classic? Well, now they are just the most useless people in the universe. And someone thought this was a good change? There’s really nothing much else to say about them because this new interpretation does them a huge disfavor.

Aurora, on the other hand, continues to be just a dull character. One would think that they could have taken their time to fix that, but no, they needed more screen time to explain the incredible “complexity” of their new take on Maleficent. 

Last but not least, one remarkable aspect of this movie is the fact that every male character that’s in it is dumb, useless or downright evil. And poor king Stephan is the one that suffers the greatest. He didn’t have much character in the original, but it wasn’t needed. And I understand that this time he needed to be a bit more fleshed out. But what they did is just stupid. According to this version, he is a man corrupted by power and who ends up going mad because of it. The worst part is that he is a one note character: first he is ambitious, then he is mad. Nothing more to explain. One might think that the only way hollywood knows how to do female empowering movies is by stereotyping its male characters so that they fit this “men are all dicks” slot.

And to top all this: the actors are horrible. Even Angelina Jolie. Much has been said about her, but she has never been a top notch actress. She may have done some entertaining movies, but she is no Kate Winslet or Julianne Moore. And this is very noticeable here. She kind of holds her own when she only has to be there and function as a presence, but the moment she needs to put dramatic intensity the whole thing crumbles, and her acting becomes kind of silly. She definitely looks the part, but I don’t think she has the dramatic strength to pull it off.

Because of all this, the problems with the storyline are pretty much connected with the character problems. First of all, trying to justify that Maleficent is not the real baddie forces the storyline into some heavy contradictions and silly turns. Second of all, it feels forced and stupid, which doesn’t help at all.

On top of that, it has zero stylistic aspirations, and completely ignores that creative drive that motivated the original movie. Here, the main drive is getting as many people into the theaters, whilst in the original, the main drive was to create an artistic piece that could boast of both visual and narrative artistry. Because of this, the movie looks exactly like any other blockbuster out now. It has nothing distinctive in style or look. The CGI looks nice, true, but it’s utterly unoriginal.

Take a look at this two pictures. They both belong to the same scene;
the only scene that is exactly the same in both movies.

But the real problem for me lies in the fact that when you give an origin story to a villain, it generally tends to ruin them. Because the moment you uncover the veil of mystery around them they stop being interesting or scary; it takes the fun away. It’s almost like trying to make an origin story for the Nolan’s Joker. With this kind of characters, the less we know about them, the more interesting they are. And the worst thing an adaptation can do is make you question if the original material was really that good to begin with.

Its contradictions, it’s shifting tone, the poor acting and its lack of stylistic aspirations turn this movie into another mindless movie made to cash in money. And what’s worse; it ends up being more childish than the animated movie. It tries to go for a more mature and three-dimensional story, but fails completely at it.

The failure of this movie serves me to reaffirm my belief that the medium transfer needed to turn a fairy tale into a big fantasy epic is not as simple as most Hollywood executives believe. There is one core problem: fairy tale are quick and simple, it’s a pretty straightforward narrative; high fantasy is not. Both genres might share the use of magical elements and far away lands, but that’s about it. The complexity of the inner workings of good high epics demands a level of work and creativity that most studios won’t commit to. 

To transfer a fairy tale into a high epic you would need to create a whole new world; its specific geography (which fairy tales never do), a distinct inner working, a characteristic culture and language, etc… Otherwise, all you’ll do will be taking the more “spectacular” aspects of high fantasy (battles, extraordinary odds….) and shoe horn them in the fairy tale. All you’ll be doing will be putting a fairy tale on steroids.

What defines high fantasy such as “Lord of the Rings” or “Game of thrones” is not the great battles; it’s not even the magical creatures. It’s the capacity to create new complex worlds that feel as real as our own, and suck in the viewer/reader. It’s usually filled with a cast of thousands; there are many many characters in this type of stories. It’s the size and scope of the story and its complexity in terms of character, morals and values.

What defines a fairy tale, on the other hand, is the focus on the morals or “lesson” that is meant to get across. It usually takes place on a nondescript place (a castle, a forest…) in a nondescript time (a long time ago…) and it’s usually reduced to two-five characters at most.

All in all, I’m disappointed that this is the route fantastic cinema is taking right now. I’d be happier if they focussed on doing real high fantasy movies instead of trying to convert Disney fairy tales into huge epic stories that try to emulate the classics of high fantasy.

New projects are coming this way!!

Good day to all of you!!

First of all I'd like to apologize for letting so much time pass without publishing anything new. It's been a really complicated summer and I was unable to find any time to write anything worth sharing with you guys.

I just started my last year in collage, and I have already tons of work; but I promise I'll try and publish something good as often as I can.

For now, I can tell you that I am working on something already, and that I'll try and have it done before the end of this month.

Meanwhile, I leave you with this awesome web side I came across with.

http://lotrproject.com/

https://www.facebook.com/lotrproject?fref=ts

This is an incredible site dedicated entirely to Tolkien's works. It's very visual and interactive, and will definitely entice any hard-core Tolkien fan.

I really hope you enjoy it.

Thanks for your time and your patience.

An illustrated comic: the Ainulindalë

I just wanted to share this amazing piece of work by Evan Plamer. He has illustrated the Ainulindalë as a comic with really beautiful imaginary.

For those who don't know, the Ainulindalë (a Quenya word which translates into "The music of the Ainur") is the first part of the Silmarillion and it narrates the beginning of the world and Middle Earth, as well as its inhabitants. It's a genesis story.

Said that, enjoy this incredible artwork that illustrates to perfection Tolkien's writtings.

http://evanpalmercomics.tumblr.com/post/60248601430/part-1-of-j-r-r-tolkiens-the-ainulindale-read

The Races of middle Earth. Racism in Tolkien's work?

Last year’s Christmas blockbuster “The Hobbit, an unexpected journey” awakened a very old front of controversy in relation to Tolkien’s work. The ever present question of racism in his texts.

There has been a lot of ink spent on discussing this. Some defend that there is a very clear racist component in Tolkien’s work due to his conception of higher men (numenorians) or the rivalry between elves and dwarves. Others claim that this charge is completely invented and an insult to the magnificent body of work this Oxford teacher created.

But this will not be an exposition of what this or that people think. What I intend to do is expose my humble point of view acquired from years devoted to this book and its lore.

I do understand that some aspects of Middle Earth can be read as racist, but I don’t think that this was Tolkien’s intention. And these are not empty words of a fan girl. Allow me to explain why.

If you take a deep look at the books that conform the lore of Middle Earth (The Lord of the rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, etc.) you will actually appreciate a very clever attempt on Tolkien’s part to encase within each race of Middle Earth a human virtue and a human flaw. By doing so, he intended to represent different aspects of the human nature within each race.

And so, Hobbits represent humility, but at the same time, they stand for compliance. Dwarves, stand for perseverance, and also represent greed. The beautiful elves embody wisdom, but also pride and arrogance. And men stand for courage, and represent ambition.

As you see, none of Middle Earth’s races is flawless. And the most interesting thing about this aspect is that each race’s flaw is the logical consequence of its virtue.

For instance, little and humble hobbits are virtuous in their humility. But the logical consequence of their lifestyle (simple and humble) is compliance. Leading such a simple life they grow lazy and uncompromising. Why should they try to be something more if like that they are already fine? This is, basically, a mirror to the reader. Most people are like that. Tolkien was only trying to reflect something that he saw every day. The simple people are often very humble and humility is their greatest virtue. But they are also compliant. They never aim for anything grander, or anything that will change their routine.

Men, on the other hand, have the great virtue of courage. They are the opposite to hobbits, they are always trying to achieve something bigger, to better themselves. And to do that, it takes a lot of courage. The logical downside is ambition. The race of men, is ambitious. They don’t long for riches, like dwarves; they desire power above all. The story of Numenor, as told in the Silmarillion is the very proof of this, as is the story of Boromir and the later madness of Denethor’s.

The same goes for the controversial dwarves. These are creatures that love working and they persevere until they get what they want. They will stop at nothing in their work, which happens to be mining. They are resistant and never complain in the face of hard work. When presented like that, their flaw could be only greed. They are constant and persevere to the extreme, which leads to their greed for riches. Their hard work in mining leads them to the need for more riches.

And there is the great controversy. With that description, everybody thinks that Tolkien was referring to the jews. First of all, I highly doubt it. But even if it was like that, would it matter? There is not a single line in any of Tolkien’s books that say that “dwarves are bad”. Dwarves do bad things, but so do all the other races (except the hobbits, and that’s sort of their sin). Elves also stray from the righteous path. And we all know men do.

This conception of the elves as the perfect race couldn’t be more wrong. It is true that elves are the first race to be created, but just as angels in Judeo-Christianity, they are not perfect. Elves are beautiful by definition; tall and fair. And most of all: elves are wise. But they have a reason to be. Elves are also immortal, and therefore, they have centuries to learn. Elves are not born wise. But they have the time to acquire said wisdom. And what is the logical flaw that comes from wisdom? Arrogance and pride. Elves are both. They know themselves wise, and therefore arrogance can not be far away.

And so, after years of thinking, I’ve come to a conclusion. This racist issue is always raised by people who have only read “The lord of the rings”, or, in most cases, only have seen the movies. And because of it, only have seen the mistakes of dwarves, mainly because all of the mistakes made by elves are narrated in “The Silmarillion”. And because of this, they think that Tolkien presents the elves as the perfect race, whilst dwarves are just a bunch of greedy people.

Well, in “The Silmarillion” there are plenty of arrogant elves that make mistakes, and pay dearly for them. The thing is, by the Third Age (when the war of the ring happens), the elves that have survived until then, are already aware of what happens to those who perish to their own arrogance, and try to avoid it.

But the main reason why I say that I don’t think that dwarves and elves are the literary transposition of nazis and jews stands on one single thing. Elves don’t consider dwarves to be a lesser race. Their hate comes as the result of a long life series of strifes, one of the main being the fact that dwarves killed the elf king in Doriath. But truly, if I had to look for a similarity for the strife between these two, I would never go for the nazis-jews hate, but more like the love-hate relationship between England and France. They’ve been at each other’s throats during centuries, but one has never been better than the other. Each race gave as good as they got.

There is nothing more I can say about it, and whomever wants to keep believing Tolkien was pronazi will keep believing it. But for all there is, I really think that this was not his intend. And I quite like what he did with the races. The idea to have the virtue of each race be the cause of their fault is really smart and I thing that works perfectly.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

The Desolation of Smaug

“The Hobbit or There and Back Again” is a fantasy novel and a children’s book written by J. R. R. Tolkien that was first published on 21st September 1937 to a wide critical acclaim. The book follows the quest of Bilbo Baggins to recover the Misty Mountain and win a share of the treasure  guarded by the dragon Smaug. It’s told in the form of an episodic quest and each chapter introduces an specific creature of this mythical world that is Middle Earth.

Sixty four years later, in 2001, the spectacular screen adaptation of the Lord of the Rings hit the silver screen. It was a success beyond anyone’s imagination. So it was only a matter of time before they brought to the screen the original work that preceded the Lord of the Rings.

And so, last year, “The Hobbit: An unexpected journey” hit the theaters. It was a big let down. And so, I didn’t particularly look forward to this year’s “The desolation of Smaug”. But, being a Tolkien fan, I had to see it. 

I must recognize that it didn’t disappoint me as much as I though it would. It’s entertaining and action packed, and a lot of people will enjoy the hell out of it. But still, there are a lot of things that don’t sit well with me. With that said, I will proceed to comment on the film itself. Please, keep in mind that this is my opinion, just that. And let yourself be warned: spoilers lie ahead.

There’s one first thing I want to get out of the way. This is not a book versus film list. I am aware that in any adaptation, changes need to be done. Although, to be sincere, it will require a big effort. I will focus, mainly on the movie itself and what things work for me or don’t within the adaptation.

Another thing I’d like to get out of the way is the CGI business. I hate the visual effects of this movie (except for Smaug). I don’t like the use they make of the CGI. I think that the Dol Guldur sequence looks particularly bad. You can tell it’s computer generated by a mile. it feels like a video game. That’s not what I want when I go to see a movie. I want to see a movie, not a video game. Besides, am I the only one who things that the orcs in the original trilogy (that were practical effects) looked better than this ones? I hate seeing a close up of an orc and being able to tell that he doesn’t exist, that its just a computer generated image.

With that said, let’s move on. I think that this movie is definitely more entertaining than its predecessor. But, in my opinion, it’s still too long. I think it drags a little at the last 40 minutes. I could start blaming this on this aspect or that aspect of the film, but in the end I thing the problem is much more profound than that. The book is really short, and the story is very straight forward. At the most it could have been split into two movies. Three is really pushing it. While you are watching the movie, you can actually feel the filmmakers struggling to fill those two hours and forty minutes. And that does not help the final product at all.

Another problem very related with the length is reflected in the tone. This was a story intended to be a light hearted children’s story. By making three movies out of it, you are trying to give an epicness to it, that just isn’t there. The stakes are not high enough. This solemnity worked on Lord of the Rings because the very fate of Middle Earth was at stake. Here, there’s just a mountain in stake. It’s not comparable. It is true that the movie has its goofy moments, which work really well, because it is the original tone. But the solemn moments don’t quite fit in.

In relation to that, I want to talk about the Dol Guldur story arc. Even when I watched “An unexpected Journey” I thought that it was a brilliant idea to incorporate this part of the story, even though originally it wasn’t in the book. It was taken from one of the appendices and I though it worked nicely. I still think it, because it ties with the rest of the Trilogy really nicely. But I don’t think that the best way to do it is the way they are doing it. In the source material, it worked because it was more subtle. Gandalf did discover that the Nine had been awakened, and he did go to Dol Guldur to sniff around this necromancer thing. But he never found out it was Sauron. He did suspect that it was a foul thing, and talked to Galadriel about it. But he never discovered the truth. That’s why, in the beginning of the Fellowship, he was surprised when Sauron finally revealed itself. So it’s only understandable that I don’t really like the reveal of Sauron in this movie. It wouldn’t bother me so much if the revelation was only to the audience (after all, that would be the only way for a non-Tolkien reader to link the necromancer to Sauron), but it reveals itself to Gandalf, and it doesn’t make any sense. 

Then there’s the “eye” thing. I know this is really nitpicking, but if Sauron could take already the form of the eye, it would mean that he has recovered all his power, and that would mean that the war could already start. This sounds really stupid, but think about it: if Sauron has all his power back, why wait 60 years before striking upon Middle Earth? Just saying. In the source material, Sauron isn’t able to take the form of the eye until Frodo inherits the ring, and that’s when the ring awakens. It’s a tiny detail, but it would have given a certain level of coherence with the trilogy that now it doesn’t have.

With that said, I will turn my attention to the dwarves. I must face that they were better this time; I mean, there wasn’t any of them fighting orcs with a slingshot. Still, I can’t find it in myself to like this interpretation of Thorin. I know they needed a leader figure, but did they really had to repeat the Aragorn story arc? The whole thing about becoming the King they were born to be doesn’t really fit Thorin in my opinion. He has other problems and inner demons to create his inner conflict. But I understand this is very subjective. 

The other thing that really bothers me is the use they make of Balin (the oldest of the dwarves). Throughout the movie he is reduced to an expository device. It seems that his only function is to explain things to the audience. Every word that comes out of his mouth is exposition. That is something that really bothers me.

Then, there’s the Mirkwood passage. This is my favorite part of the book, so it’s hard for me to see certain things. I’ll agree that the spiders are really good. I enjoyed the hell out of their sequence. The same goes for Thranduil. I love his character and what they did with him. They did change things from the book, but they kept his spirit. He was enjoyable in his prickiness and was everything I expected him to be and more. I also loved the barrel sequence. It was fun, dynamic, entertaining. And even though at times it felt like they were pushing it, it was still enjoyable.

I can not say the same about Tauriel. She is too much for me. I can take a lot of changes from the source material. I could take a new invented character. But I can't stand what they did with her character. I though the love triangle was horrible. I know a lot of people liked her. But it killed me. The whole love attraction between her and Killi was something that made me want to tear my eyes out every time it appeared. I think it wasn’t necessary, and that it undermines the importance and humanity of the later friendship between Legolas and Gimli. With this backstory, that relationship is read as Legolas trying to emulate his beloved Tauriel. Without it, it felt more human, because the friendship was born out of true respect and understanding of each other. So I really thing they messed up with it.

Then, of course, there’s the issue of Legolas’ inclusion in the movie. I like that, I can’t deny it. But I must recognize that, in this movie, Orlando Bloom does his worst. He has the worst acting moments in his career during the length of this film. And that sort of rubs me the wrong way. Besides that, I have another major issue with his character. In the books, and the original trilogy, Legolas was defined by an acute sense of humor and a recurrent use of irony. But somehow, this is lost in this movie. Legolas is one of the younger elves. He is fun loving. But somehow, in The Hobbit, he never smiles. So, you are telling me, that someone who was able to crack jokes before the battle of the Hornburg can’t even smile now? Why do this in a movie where the tone is overall more light and goofy? I really didn’t like that.

The issue of Legolas leads me to another thing I didn’t like. Following the source material line by line doesn’t really make a good adaptation. Maintaining it’s spirit and logic does. It’s important to be faithful to the logic established in the source material. That’s why I hated when, in Lake town, Legolas fought with the orcs barehanded. In the books, and even in the Lord of the Rings movies, it’s established that elves never fight like humans, they wouldn’t use their hands. They have weapons for a reason. This is a silly detail, but it shows a huge discordance with the logic that has been already established. And that bothers me.

Let’s move to the Lake-town. Here, the audience is introduced to Bard the Bowman. In the book, he only appears when the dragon has already burned Lake-town, and his background is explained later. In the movie, they chose to introduce him earlier and give said background before. On one hand, I like it, because it doesn’t seem like he pops out of nowhere. On the other hand, it turns everything very predictable (anyone can tell me that he doesn’t know that Bard is going to shoot the black arrow and kill Smaug?). So, I can’t decide which option would have been better.

And before I start talking about Smaug. I want to say something. I loved Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He is great. He has a huge sense of humor and an incredible timing, but at the same time, he has a huge capacity for emoting in the dramatic moments. So, I have nothing bad to say about him.

Said that, let’s dive into the halls of Erebor. I thought that Smaug was incredible. The animation was amazing. It looked great. And Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug’s voice was top notch. He nailed it. A lot of times, monsters are horribly voiced in movies. They sound too ridiculous. This is not the case. I loved the first scene with Smaug and Bilbo. It’s like a battle of wits almost. That was really enjoyable. What I really didn’t enjoy was the whole sequence with the molten gold. In the books, the dwarves never go into the mountain while Smaug is still inside, but I do understand the dramatic need to have Thorin face Smaug (which never happens in the book, if I recall correctly). What I don’t understand is the need to create a stupid plan to kill the dragon. The gold scene is really silly and far too long. A plan like this makes the characters seem really stupid: why would a boiling liquid (molten gold) kill a dragon? Dragons aren’t affected by fire nor heat. Maybe it is because I’ve read and seen a lot of fantasy, but that is common knowledge. So please writers, do some research before you do something like that.

So, all in all, I think The Hobbit adaptation, if done in two movies and not three, could have been a much better movie. But, being what it is, The desolation of Smaug is entertaining enough and can make you have a good time at the movies, even though it still has a lot of problems that, for me, are very difficult to go through, but for most of people will be unnoticeable.

The Desolation of Smaug Premiers

The more or less awaited sequel of "An unexpected Journey" is finally out in theaters. This weekend "The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug" has hit the silver screen.

I still haven't had the opportunity to see it, and therefore, I cannot offer any particular insight. I just wanted to mark this event.

Truth be told, I am not terribly excited about it, especially after seeing how disappointing the last movie was. But I also must say that the part of the book which this movie covers is probably my favorite. That's probably the reason why I really feel bad about how little expectations I have about this movie.

I really love the insight we get in the book of the Mirkwood forest and its people. Specially Thranduil. He might be a disagreeable character with a profound hate towards dwarfs (I will discuss the racist interpretations some other day), but he is one heck of an enjoyable character.

One of the most controversial aspects of this release is the introduction of the she-elf Tauriel, which is a completely invented character. She doesn't appear in the book, and was added due to the controversial lack of female presence in the story. I don't really agree with that decision. But I will refrain my complaints until I see the movie.

And then there's the inclusion of Legolas, although he isn't in the book either. This is not so controversial because Tolkien itself though that he should be in the story, but he never had the time to include him. Again, I will wait to see the movie to give my final thoughts on this.

So, enough complaining. The movie is out in theaters since last Friday. And as a high fantasy fan, I had to mention it.

The Lord of the rings: the role of the Everyman

The art of storytelling, whether we are talking of literature, movies or theater, is a very complex one. And, if we restrict to ourselves to what has unfairly been called “commercial” storytelling, we must agree that it bases itself on the premise that there must be a certain structure, certain formula that helps the audience to connect with the story by the means of easy recognition of said formula. That formula, in action, adventure or epic stories is generally known as the hero’s journey.

Campbell’s study of mythology that resulted on this “hero’s journey” is nothing more than a standardization of the narrative structure that lies behind every mythological story told since the beginning of time: from the story of Isis in ancient Egypt to every story in the Bible, passing through the legends of King Arthur and most of the literature that derives from it. Therefore, it’s only logical that a story that aimed to become the true Anglo-Saxon mythology would loosely follow this structure even if at the time it was written, Campbell was very far from its conception.

“The Lord of the rings” was written by J.R.R. Tolkien between 1937 and 1949 and was first published in 1954, divided into three books: “The Fellowship of the Ring”, “The Two Towers” and “The Return of the King”.

The most interesting aspect in regards to this is the fact that, as it was written and structured intuitively (unlike many scripts that were made after Campbell published his theory) it creates a story were different journeys are incased one inside the other. We all can agree that, as a protagonist, Frodo leads the main journey, but there is also Aragorn’s hero’s journey, and Faramir’s, and many others. This gives the story a veracity that helps create this feeling that you are reading a legend that is thousands of years old.

I’m going to try to clarify this: stories like “Star wars”, “The matrix”, “Harry Potter”, created after Campbell’s big revelation, follow almost step by step his theory. The result, although very entertaining, is also very contrived. I base this far fetched statement in one single argument: the role of the everyday man. In these stories these is far too forced and contrived, especially when compared to a story like Tolkien’s.

I started off this essay by saying that in adventure or epic stories it is needed a recognizable structure to capture the audience. But there is one thing that is even more important: the audience needs to connect with the characters and the story, and to do that he need to relate to our protagonist. Because of this, in this heroic stories, the hero tends to respond to the figure of the Everyman.

The Everyman is the narrative equivalent to the ordinary person. It’s the figure of the average, which calls to almost everyone in an audience because most of us don’t have superpowers or are incredibly brave and courageous. We are nothing but ordinary, and, therefore, we want our protagonist to be nothing but ordinary, at least at the beginning.

This is especially clear in stories like “Harry Potter”, where our main character is absolutely ordinary, it even has the most ordinary name in the Anglo-Saxon world. He has nothing special about him, except that he is a wizard. But even then, he is not the best wizard nor the bravest. He is nothing but average.

In “Star Wars” there is also something like that, but it’s not so blatant: Luke is the Everyman in the sense that he is nothing but a farmer with no special powers. But, unlike Harry, as his adventure advances he abandons the role of the ordinary man to become extraordinary, and that is maybe the reason why I prefer “Star Wars” to “Harry Potter”. But I’m going to try to stay out of such diatribes.

"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future" - The Fellowship of the ring

The thing is: I’ve made my point clear: there is the need of the figure of the Everyman for the audience to connect with our story through our protagonist.

And “The Lord of the rings”, as expected, even though it’s not as formulaic as these other stories I’ve mentioned, it does use the figure of the Everyman. 

Tolkien’s work is a huge, heavy-detailed high fantasy epic, filled with characters. But at the same time, it’s the story of a little Hobbit named Frodo Baggins. It’s a high fantasy epic, but it’s also the story of the Everyman.

In this case, the figure of Frodo helps the audience to connect with the story, for in the middle of this fantasy, there’s a character that, to a degree, it’s recognizable.

But here, unlike in other stories, the set up for the introduction of the Everyman into the adventure works much more natural.

More often than not, it is very difficult to put the Everyman into the protagonist slot because: what does the Everyman have to do with the doings of war and heroes? Some storytellers go to great lengths to put that Everyman into the coveted slot of the protagonist.   Our main character always ends up being the product of some predetermined Messianic prophecy; someone comes and tells them they were the chosen one all along (Dune, Harry Potter, Star Wars). Or sometimes, the set up is just stupid: the main lead just happens to have a mark in their skin that happens to be the map to anywhere important or something like that.

But the set up of the ring actually works very naturally for Frodo. He is the only one who can carry it to Mordor because if any of the great heroes or powerful characters, like Aragorn or Gandalf or Galadriel, are the ones to carry the ring, they can become something terrible, like Sauron or a Ringwraith. On the other hand, if it’s Frodo who takes it, in the worst case can become like Gollum. And this is precisely because he is the Everyman, he is ordinary, he doesn’t matter and has no say in the big schemes of the world. He has no power at all. So, because of the powerful and corrupting nature of the ring itself, only a non powerful and unimportant person can carry it.

And it is something as stupid as this what gives the extra point of credibility to this story. The Hobbits, as described by Tolkien, are the most similar to the average men we have in middle earth. And precisely because of it they are described as small folk who always stay out of everything. They do not take part in the comings and goings of their world. They are humble and contempt themselves with what they have. Frodo never dreams of becoming a great warrior, nor does he want any glory for himself. His wish is more human: he wants to keep the Shire green and safe, so Hobbits can continue being the way they are. He knows he is not Aragorn; brave and kingly, neither is he Legolas: bold and graceful, nor is he Gandalf: old and wise. He is Frodo Baggins of Bag End.

The key of this lies behind a line voiced by Galadriel in “The Fellowship of the ring”; even the smallest person can change the course of the future. This is clearly an idea deep engraved behind Tolkien’s trilogy. And that is exactly the reason why they couldn’t use the excuse of the Messianic prophecy to force our character into the adventure. The moment this card is played, our character stops full filing the role of the Everyman and becomes  a Messianic figure. 

That is why Harry, despite J.k Rowling’s efforts, isn’t really the representation of the Everyman. By marking him and turning him into “the one who lived” he becomes something else. He is marked as superior from the rest. As seen here, this setup doesn’t really respect the notion of the Everyman.

The case of Luke Skywalker in the Star wars trilogy is really similar. Luke is never the Everyman, not even in his days in Tatooine. He is his father’s son, and therefore he is destined to become, to a certain extend, a Jedi. Therefore, what we get is a non average character who has lived his youth as the Everyman and after a certain external element enters his life (R2-D2 and C3PO) he is forced to return to the life he was predestined to. Again, we find another “false” Everyman figure.

The main difference is that in “The Lord of the rings” Frodo is not marked nor predestined to anything. He is a simple Hobbit who lives a simple life. And when the story begins, he is thrusted into a world that is not his own, only to end up returning to his usual normal world and live for the rests of his days as the Everyman.

In the other two examples, what we find is two characters who were being forced into the Everyman slot out of a tragedy that befell on their parents and they are eventually restored to the world they were born into; in Harry’s case is the magic world, and in Luke’s case is the Jedi Order.

And so, I rest my case. The role of the Everyman is almost vital to high fantasy or big adventure stories, and it’s set up is something really complex due to its inner workings. Despite that, Tolkien’s work, does a great job at introducing it and finds a perfect excuse to make something really transcendent within the story itself.

This is Tolkien’s greatness (amongst other things), to take a world created completely out of his imagination and find the way to anchor it in our reality by constructing a really great link with the readers (or audience) through the reestablished role of the Everyman.

Welcome!!

The Last Homely House is a Blog dedicated to high fantasy and all its forms; from Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones, but also Star Wars and other fantasy fandoms.

I hope you, fantasy fans around the world, enjoy it.

Thanks to you all! :)