the sound and the fury

Rating: 10/10 (17 January 2003)

For most of a year I waited -- hardly able to contain myself -- for the second installment of the trilogy. The first film, while not flawless looks better and better the more I see it. The characterizations are rich, sensitive and nuanced, the narrative propulsive, the scenery lovely and Tolkien's words and ideas well represented (and embodied).
All that waiting and for what? Director Jackson has lost his way.
This is not Tolkien's Two Towers -- a fable that, among other things, sets out to demonstrate that/how even the smallest among us can change the world. These are not Tolkien's characters. In particular Theoden and Faramir -- two great characters with large roles to play in the proceedings -- are inexplicably cast in a poor light. The Ents -- while visually well rendered seem mostly to stand as bookmarks to hold Merry and Pippen while the film moves forward without them. Nor is it his story line. Fans know all of the deviations. The question is this: Why'd Jackson do it?
The Fellowship proved that Jackson and company were up to the task. But the Two Towers falls flat. Profitable, but flat. Why?
My theory is that Jackson and his producers got greedy. The first feature reached number five all-time on the international box office charts. Rather than celebrating their success with a stern commitment to a faithful rendering of Tolkien's books, Jackson et al. seem to have decided to see if they could do even better -- in the box office, that is. So they trimmed away less sexy characters (Theoden, for example), added more action and special effects, simplified the plot and, along the way, ceased to be about Tolkien's Two Towers.
It may play to huge numbers in search of great battle scenes but great filmmaking it ain't. Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing . . .