News |
A Discussion of the `Multiple Endings' of Peter Jackson's [i]The Return of the King[/i]
January 13, 2005
Submitted By Silwen
Comment on This
Email to a Friend
Digg This
The actual ending of ROTK is the destruction of the One Ring, the resolution we have all been anticipating in cinemas for three whole years. In this stretch of time we have come to like the characters who have been part of one of the most vital quests in Middle-earth's history. In the months between the release of each film we have also had ample time to attach more emotion to each character than we would normally have done, had the intervals between the films been shorter. Thus, many viewers have grown fond of the main characters and are very happy with the multiple endings that show us a little of what awaits them once their quest is completed. The Ring's destruction has subsequently become only one of the crucial points of the film.
Something that needs to be considered here is that most viewers are, of course, also readers of LOTR. This means that they already know what to expect. They are not merely readers but fans of Tolkien's novel and want to see everything they have read on the screen as well. Only few viewers are unfamiliar the story, not knowing what will happen and how the it all ends. We have both informed and uninformed viewers who quite naturally have different expectations when going to the cinema.
The uninformed viewers will evidently be more open to the film since they have no preconceived ideas that might hinder their viewing. Therefore they will also be more likely to notice the strange `chunky' ending that does not conclude, as may be supposed, with Sam and Frodo on Mount Doom and the line well known by readers, "I'm glad you're with me, Sam, here at the end of all things." Would this not have been a perfect ending to the trilogy? Had Jackson fleshed out this last sequence a little more, I believe it would have been an excellent ending.
However, a film is not a book, and both work differently since we are dealing with different media. In the case of a film a director needs to consider which would be the most immediately satisfying way to end because pictures directly affect us and our emotions (unless it is explicitly his intention to create a jarring effect). Books, however, allow us to reread and spend more time on certain passages as each reader is able to regulate the speed individually. All we have in books are mental images which are not as strong as what we see on the screen, and even though we spend more time and energy with the reading, a film triggers a spontaneous - uncontrolled - emotional reaction.
Since we have two groups of LOTR-viewers, the film's conclusion creates different reactions. The important question is: which ending would be emotionally most satisfying for which type of viewer? The informed viewers for the most part have no problems with Jackson's ending because they say the important characters all need to be accounted for. So we cannot leave cinematic Middle-earth with a last glimpse of Frodo and Sam on Mount Doom, knowing that there is much more still to happen in the novel. What will happen to Merry and Pippin, Gimli and Legolas, Gandalf, and Aragorn, the future king? So many story-lines have been introduced or at least hinted at (and abandoned for the sake of conciseness) that we simply need to be given some idea of what is in store for them all.
Unfortunately, the film suffers from this. The uninformed viewers who have not read the book will rather expect an ending that is final, one that indicates clearly that the story has come to and end and Middle-earth has been saved - perhaps with the sacrifice of two Hobbits' lives. The number of fading scenes that make the impression of it being the end now, right now, once and for all, time to leave, are simply irritating. Film makers who consider that thwarting their viewers' expectations is a stroke of genius and good film-making are usually right - but in the case of ROTK this is going to far. After the first fade-out on Mount Doom the viewers have finally relaxed and come to a conclusion. But then the next scene comes up and they are forced back into the story. Once that is over and the scene fades too, they are certain that this is the end, it is time to leave and to think about where the car was parked and how long it will take to get out of this crowded place, but - it is not over yet. Another scene, and with it the realisation that this could go on forever. In films fade-outs bring you back to reality, inevitably, since they are clear reminders and indicators of fiction.
The additional scenes are like appendices, so the film even has a final formal connection to Tolkien's novel that most probably was not intended. Yet, an important skill of writers and film-makers is to know when it is best to stop, even if it means, as and American writer once said, that you must "kill your darlings". Tolkien was obsessed with his mythology and added more and more material to his book. The appendices do not interfere with the rest of the novel, the actual story, and they need not be read unless the readers want to know more than they are able to obtain from the trilogy itself. The appendices are clearly indicated, in some editions they are even sold separately or not at all, and form a supplementary section. True, the scenes that constitute the film's ending are part of the book's actual story, but the manner of their presentation makes them appear very much like a filmic version of an appendix. Jackson was unwilling to end the film where it would have been most effective and emotionally most satisfying just as Tolkien was unwilling to abandon his story.
I am primarily a reader and philologist, a lover of words, and prefer the written form of LOTR. In this I am very much like Tolkien, perhaps. The professor himself wrote that he considered his novel to be unfilmable, and given his many critical letters, presented by Humphrey Carpenter, I am sure that he would have found much to criticise about Jackson's film. I am a fan of the book as well as the film, but this does not exclude a critical mind. I understand that a film is a film and a book is a book, each has different possibilities and changes are necessary in the adaptation of prose for the screen. In the case of Jackson's last film, though, it seems to me that he lost sight of his task as a director. Instead, he had occasional lapses, I would term them, when his fandom got the better of him. This becomes a problem only when it leads to omissions, inclusions, and additions that are unnecessary for the film's development or even change certain aspects of Tolkien's conception of Middle-earth.
I accept and understand why so many fans are happy with the final instalment of LOTR. There are those of us who know films cannot include everything we may like to see and still be of good quality throughout. And there are also those of us who have waited long to see how everything we only imagined will eventually be brought to the screen. Finally being able to see the characters we have grown to love merely through reading is a way to match them to our mental image. They have now come to life more than they were able to on the page, and we want to see them do all we imagined them doing, and we need to be allowed to take leave of them properly. Given the different positions of the viewers and readers it is difficult to say whether Jackson's choice to end the film the way he did is right or wrong. I am not a lesser fan of Tolkien's work simply because I occasionally disagree with Jackson's approach. Yet I do consider it helpful and wise to be critical especially when it comes to the things we love.
Comment on This
Email to a Friend
Digg This
Get more information on this article's topic here:
The Reading Room :
Critical Viewpoints :
Reader Comments
... 7 Comments
I think if Jackson had left the ending with Sam and Frodo at the End of all things my heart would have been broken. I had to read the book after the Movie to find out how the books went and I enjoyed both the books and the movie
Comment by Babycakes49 - February 17, 2005 @ 1:43 PM
Firstoff, let me say congratulations. This was a great,thought-provoking essay. However i must say that I agreed wholly with Jackson's approach with the 'multiple endings'. I thought it was a great for to add resolve to a movie that if ended at the Mount Doom sequence, would leave to much to speculation. As a hard-core Tolkien fan, I enjoyed how Peter kept us on the seat edges, waiting to see what would happen. Plus, if he had filmed all the way to the end with Sam saying, "Well, im back.", Instead of making it so that the movie was over and starting again, it would people the sense it was another movie that ended in that manner, as there have been many before. Peter took his unique style and incorporated it into LOTR.
It was almost as though he wanted it to end in a signature , original way, so as to make people say at the end, "That's Peter Jackson for ya." He wanted to make it his own, and not a typical ending common to that genre. But otherwise, i though it was a great essay.
Comment by pellenor8989 - August 5, 2005 @ 7:35 PM
I actually agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the multiple endings. First off, this is not a uniquely Peter Jackson thing, in response to the above comment. Spielberg is notorious for his 'false endings:' it worked for Schindler's List because it drove home the fact that the story was true, but it failed miserably with AI.
. The reverence got to be so thick that it was hard to take seriously. One more slow-motion shot of characters laughing and smiling, one more matte shot of a light-drowned landscape, one more elf doing the put-the-hand-out-and-bow thing, one more scene where you're just waiting for Frodo and Sam to start making out, and I wouldn't have been able to take it.
Personally, I don't think that an ending should resolve everything. It is impossible to conclude all storylines in a work of this magnitude. The destruction of the one ring was the climax, but I felt the story truly ended with Aragorn's coronation. Thus concludes the journeys of the two main heroes - Frodo, who would be the savior of middle earth, and Aragorn, who would be the savior of men. Frankly, the trip to Valinor, Sam's marriage, and the rest are different stories that simply involve the same characters.
Jackson's ending was like the cinematic version of a curtain-call, where every actor in a play takes a bow, only he took it too far. A great example of how to do a good wrapup like that is in Revenge of the Sith. Lucas manages to show Obi-Wan and Yoda going into exile, the twins being given to their adoptive parents, Padme's funeral, and the death star beginning construction, all in five minutes. Return of the King had six! separate endings that took up a total of over thirty minutes. It got a little ridiculous to the point where my roommate and I were counting the endings and laughing each time another would come up ("here we go again"
Otherwise, the movie was fantastic, one of the best fantasy films ever made and my all-time favorite fantasy film aside from the Two Towers extended edition (which ends terrifically, with the pan to Mt. Doom and Gollum's Song). Whether or not it works in the book is another matter, but I don't think there is ever any cinematic justification for extending a film over thirty minutes past its climax.
Comment by loseyourname - August 7, 2005 @ 8:04 AM
I agree with everything the poster pointed out. There is certainly no cinematic justification for a 30-minute ending. However, the proposal to cut it off at "the end of all things" on Mount Doom, while elegant, misses the point in my opinion.
My view is likely influenced by the Silmarillion and other things; this position may not be fully supported if you've read only Lord of the Rings.
I think the story is ultimately a tragedy, not meant to have a happy ending, even though the good guys win and the hero gets the girl. I locate the focus of the story at the Grey Havens when Gandalf and Frodo take leave of their friends.
This is the loss of innocence, the ending of the magic, the passing of the age of faery, and the dawn of reason and the world of Men.
I don't think it would have taken a great deal of time to explain what's going on there as being not just the parting of friends but a sundering of worlds and the unmaking of the foundations of Elfinesse. A quick word at the Council in "Fellowship" that win or lose, the world will never be the same, and then Gandalf on the docks explaining to Sam that the power of the Three is ended and no Elf remains in Middle Earth.
For me, it's the passing of the Elves that transforms the story from a typical Sci-Fi novel (though a very good one) to an enduring classic with something important to say about the human condition.
Comment by gzeiger - August 23, 2005 @ 6:25 PM
i think that the sequence of scenes at the end of this movie was incredably nessesary, tho granted the fading out transitions are irritating. if the movie had ended on Orodruin, i would have been mad at Peter Jackson
Keep in mind that Tolkien was a perfectionist, and in that sense he may have seen a movie as a guillatine for his books. i would agree that tolkien would not be happy with Jacksons portrayal of the movie, but in the same way a parent might be aggrievated if an artist drew their son's head too small.
on the whole Jackson has done a great job on the movie, and the only problem i can see is that i was not casted
Comment by bombadil12 - December 9, 2005 @ 6:26 AM
Folks, lets face the truth. And the truth is this, the multiple ending complaint is retarded. Being a person who read the books before I saw the movie, I had nearly broke the seat in front of me when I thought "I'm glad you're with me..." might be the end. I know a gazillion people out here who are fans of the movies, never read the books, and still freaked when they thought that it might end at ending 1. Actually, one of them said that he really enjoyed the ending because it dosen't leave you asking: what about so-and-so?
-A Mushroom Dude
Comment by *mushroom_dudes* - August 15, 2006 @ 9:19 AM
I still dont understand why did he leave does it have to do with his scars never healing(emotional / physical )?
Comment by Seravok - October 12, 2006 @ 8:31 PM